{ "Contributors": [ "Mihir Parmar" ], "Source": [ "imdb" ], "URL": [ "https://ai.stanford.edu/~amaas/data/sentiment/" ], "Categories": [ "Sentiment Analysis" ], "Reasoning": [], "Definition": [ "In this task, you are given a review of a movie and a boolean question whether this review has positive sentiment or negative sentiment. Your task is to generate answer \"yes\" when the tweet has that particular sentiment, otherwise generate answer \"no\"." ], "Input_language": [ "English" ], "Output_language": [ "English" ], "Instruction_language": [ "English" ], "Domains": [ "Reviews -> Movies" ], "Positive Examples": [ { "input": "Review: For a movie that gets no respect there sure are a lot of memorable quotes listed for this gem. Imagine a movie where Joe Piscopo is actually funny! Maureen Stapleton is a scene stealer. The Moroni character is an absolute scream. Watch for Alan The Skipper Hale jr. as a police Sgt. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": "yes", "explanation": "There is an expression of appreciation in this movie review, hence we can say it's positive. So generated label is 'yes'." }, { "input": "Review: Bizarre horror movie filled with famous faces but stolen by Cristina Raines (later of TV's Flamingo Road) as a pretty but somewhat unstable model with a gummy smile who is slated to pay for her attempted suicides by guarding the Gateway to Hell! The scenes with Raines modeling are very well captured, the mood music is perfect, Deborah Raffin is charming as Cristina's pal, but when Raines moves into a creepy Brooklyn Heights brownstone (inhabited by a blind priest on the top floor), things really start cooking. The neighbors, including a fantastically wicked Burgess Meredith and kinky couple Sylvia Miles & Beverly D'Angelo, are a diabolical lot, and Eli Wallach is great fun as a wily police detective. The movie is nearly a cross-pollination of Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist--but what a combination! Based on the best-seller by Jeffrey Konvitz, The Sentinel is entertainingly spooky, full of shocks brought off well by director Michael Winner, who mounts a thoughtfully downbeat ending with skill. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": "no", "explanation": "This review has different happy sentiments and comments about movie, hence this is a positive review. But the question is regarding negative review, hence, the answer is no." }, { "input": "Review: Really an amazing pile of pap! A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary. The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.

Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.

Never, ever, ever again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": "yes", "explanation": "This review has expression of hateness, hence this is a negative review. Hence, the answer is yes." } ], "Negative Examples": [ { "input": "Review: Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie? Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": "no", "explanation": "Here, the reviewer does not felt that it's a good movie, hence this review is negative. But the answer is 'no' which is wrong." }, { "input": "Review: I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": "no", "explanation": "This review has expression of hateness, hence this is a negative review. But, the answer is no for negative review which is not right." } ], "Instances": [ { "id": "task285-659e853f33d14985b47d7d2eea606f7a", "input": "Review: A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch \"Scalps\" or \"Alien Dead\" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but \"Haunting Fear\" is too dull to be enjoyable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f83052fba1d4a56bef2754ded6a46f6", "input": "Review: That's what the title should be, anyway.This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an \"action\" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.What happens in the movie? People die.Is that it? Yes.What is the plot about? What plot?What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard \"entertainment\", then \"Made Men\" is not for you.To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't \"Made\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-546b45881a894ef8b023df0df4bb03c0", "input": "Review: I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e30aeb0239da4f5f9463ac6fe71b9cfe", "input": "Review: I first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59379027551447ed8780faab204e2772", "input": "Review: Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0385b1fd411a4f62a8978a5db66f9f8d", "input": "Review: I'm one of those people who usually watch programs and keep my feelings about a show private. However, Pushing Daisies is my exception. I became curious about the program from the commercials that aired which gave glimpses of the premise of the show. I was skeptical about it at first, especially after the finale of Six Feet Under was still in my head. Here we go again, I thought. I watched the first, second, third and all the other episodes. Wow! First of all, I thought it took the subject of death and presented in a way that was palatable without being morbid. The characters were engaging and I like the thought of Ned the main character not being able to literally touch the love of his life, Chuck without the consequences of her dying.Most of the characters have a longing for things they can't have. Besides Ned and Chuck, Olive longs for Ned. Lily and Vivian longs for their niece Chuck and Emerson is always longing for the monetary rewards from the mysterious deaths they solve. I think the characters are picture perfect and believable. I like how Emerson who is black plays off of the rest of the characters since as an African American; I like the subtle cultural humor that sometimes comes from him.All in all, this visual fairytale is one of the most valuable pieces of entertainment that I've seen out of the 2007 season. I think the show has enough romance for the romantics and enough who-done-it for the mystery buffs. I just wish the writers would get back to work, so that the show can continue to evolve. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffc4116ff5e9479b881f4a98a0ce9c09", "input": "Review: I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3476d7ee289743fba605a9c58fe77b3b", "input": "Review: I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.Intriguing.NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fb635a3f1c64a659f77fe75f70c10de", "input": "Review: The movie \"Slugs\" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teensthat get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells \"You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!\" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic \"Pod People\" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate \"Slugs\". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of \"Pieces\" and \"Pod People\". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16c25b3097c5492c875768440d4b7241", "input": "Review: Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.\"The Fear: Resurrection\" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): \"Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween\" (\"Fear 2: One Night of Halloween\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbb428a525064440867c0a9dedaf9b4b", "input": "Review: I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7addc98922b54040a70aaab2bc03121e", "input": "Review: The movie held my interest, mainly because Dianne Keaton is my favorite actress. I disagree with some of the other posts on the grounds that the plot was not convoluted. I had no trouble following it (maybe some people had too much eggnog the night before). The movie was very sad and touching as well. What more do you want? Alexa Davalos is a fine new talent (beautiful too), and Tom Everett Scott does an excellent job with his part as well. The relationship of the mother and daughter may have been a bit unrealistic, but the behavior of the young people in the movie was not. It was tragically sad but enlightening. It sure beat the other shows that were on TV New Years Day evening Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa29a8967daf44829d06ad291c581499", "input": "Review: Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in \"krummernes Jul\", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like \"Film folket\"!all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e70782d31a544428a994ab101994efc", "input": "Review: Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments – I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) – but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing – 2/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07cde75793824adebc8199d18a1914ca", "input": "Review: Alan Curtis has a loud, violent sounding argument with his wife, slams out of his apartment, has a night of drinking with a mysterious lady with a large hat in a bar (run by Andrew Tombes, in a nice villainous part for a change), and returns to find his wife dead and the police, led by Thomas Gomez waiting for him. His attempts to prove his alibi - that he was with that mysterious lady - fall because everyone that he can think of (Tombes, Elisha Cook) claims there was never any such person. He ends up with no alibi, although his secretary (who secretly loves him) Ellen Raines believes him. Convicted after a trial, he is awaiting his death sentence. Raines starts going out after the truth, discovering that Gomez has some doubts of his own. She also finds an ally in a friend of Curtis, Franchot Tone, who was apparently out of town the night of the crime. Will she clear Curtis in time? THE PHANTOM LADY is based on a novel by William Irish (the great noir writer Cornell Woolrich). As movie fans know from other works by Woolrich (LEOPARD MAN, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, REAR WINDOW, NO MAN OF HER OWN) one cannot assume what is true on the surface anywhere. The missing wife of a salesman may not actually be upstate, sending him messages that she arrived, if he still has her jewelry. The mentalist may really be able to predict tragedy - or was he plotting the murder of his old partner, now an oil millionaire? Did a leopard kill the young women, or is the wealthy recluse in town actually hiding some guilty knowledge? Is the young woman, claiming to be the wife of a brother killed in a train wreck, actually an impostor? Here it is Raines and Gomez (with an assist by Tone) trying to prove Curtis did see a woman nobody will admit seeing - and if he did see her, why is nobody else able to recall seeing her? The problem with the story really is Curtis's personality - he gives in too easily when found guilty of the crime he did not commit. In reality anyone who is innocent would be screaming it to the moment they are executed. However, in defense of Curtis's collapse, it also happens to other people in various films: Gary Cooper, in MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, gets so disgusted about the framing he gets as delusional and mad by Douglas Dumbrille and his minions that he does not defend himself at first, until the people who would depend on his help cry out their fears in the courtroom and reawaken his sense of responsibility. But Curtis just seems to give up. In normal circumstances Raines, Gomez, and everyone else would not care if Curtis didn't.But the film survives this weakness. The slow unraveling of lies by witnesses bribed by the real killer allows two set pieces for Raines with Tombes on a deserted elevated platform and Elisha Cook at a jazz session. Gomez turns out to be more perceptive than the villain expects in double checking his alibi again. And the villain manages to keep slightly ahead of Raines and Gomez until the concluding minutes of the film. If it is not as great a film as DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or THE MALTESE FALCON, it holds up pretty well until the moment Curtis and Raines are reunited at the end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79551a42263f41eb9e28eb754f91dc8b", "input": "Review: Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a \"parody\" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato \"slides\" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-acf7606da136427c83a25e99fb93dadc", "input": "Review: I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut \"hero\": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading \"Cat's Cradle,\" my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus \"White Christmas\" albums. So it goes! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2e8a5ab27fe46188bdc4330027fe22c", "input": "Review: When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end. Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if \"people will get it\". I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; \"What was the point?\" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is \"The best British film in years\". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly \"I can see people sitting at home saying \"this isn't amazing, its sh$t\" he isn't wrong. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53102360201b4f4bb9b8b4c2b1f4f534", "input": "Review: I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this \"The Best Adaptation Ever\" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d6b13fc9c094730aa23fea758327416", "input": "Review: Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the \"bella, bella\" scenery of the city. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9a5a456212a4c0a829a9637da744aad", "input": "Review: Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV \"Movies of the Week\" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including \"Crowhaven Farm\", \"Bad Ronald\", \"Satan's School for Girls\", \"Kolchak the Night Stalker\", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe73aea488824272886a4894080dc0d2", "input": "Review: This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34b51455c8d642a3b1358bf28090742e", "input": "Review: This movie starts presenting a somehow original idea but became a great frustration later on. What is the deal of having an original start if the rest of the movie did little to avoid a clichéd plot? The movie itself is very unbelievable. I would like to know how exactly someone enters a clinic, gets a nurse outfit, kills a doctor, takes out a patient in her bed, puts into his Chevy pickup and leaves? I guess no one could answer this question, so they just jumped to the other scene hiding these little details. The performances are just plain bad. The villain is just another \"annoying crazy antagonist\", no deepness, totally linear character. After 20 minutes of film, most scenes are unbelievable, seemed like they were put there just for the sake of the 90 minutes since they were totally unneeded. A doctor see a woman clearly under strong medication, is denied to examine her, gets kicked out of the house and simply leaves quiet? The ending scene made me burst into laugher, only Mickey Mouse could make it more out of reality. I'm giving it 2 out of 10 for the first lets say 10 minutes of movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-552698e92d604765befdf4bb9ddc14fc", "input": "Review: This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b37f14caf48d442ba2685e3e56776f50", "input": "Review: Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think \"damn I really lucked out finding this movie\". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-524957624d5441618da5d57ecef6c100", "input": "Review: I caught this movie on FX last night, and as I was sitting there watching it, it occurred to me that it could quite possibly be the worst movie ever. Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sound, totally unbelievable fight sequences, stupid characters. All these made it up to be the most laughably bad movie I've ever seen. It was so bad, I was enthralled by it's sheer lack of anything semi-competent that I had to keep watching... and they made a sequel! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32717c2224d641f29c363738902ffae7", "input": "Review: I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e45899d1f4d44b89c616bf06dd4920e", "input": "Review: One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because \"It just won't be me\" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5db2877313ef424399040e3a32acef8b", "input": "Review: Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d0edbb3743243eabd65942f50b6be0f", "input": "Review: Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16df1c1f06a74cd1adcf68bbe96fe335", "input": "Review: This movie was so good. Leon Phelps is hilarious. I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8671f91e6a954f7a9c5217dca274e619", "input": "Review: The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to \"prove\" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional \"Frankie and Johnny\" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f44009db9e94cd388debfef7288c5c7", "input": "Review: Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid \"movie\" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps \"Home Alone 2: Lost in New York\" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2349f67f0a24fb5869737403297d777", "input": "Review: This movie is best described or compare to \"Big Fish\" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-051a38b2c1c848c6a03743230b25ec47", "input": "Review: I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-96c03ebf5f87492b8061d51cbb809c7e", "input": "Review: Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day \"My Family\". Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. \"Bloody Thatcher\" possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of \"catherine Tate\" \"the office\" \"little Britain\" and bring back the classics! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-defe171305df4a32bd1ced49cad2404e", "input": "Review: This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54afe1c1aa6b47269b9b5c667f2d116a", "input": "Review: Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is \"made of stone\" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f299272d383247ab914f5f9e0170ad20", "input": "Review: The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version. Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton. It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists. The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea37475a1e244cf3930c0242b02cf2bc", "input": "Review: I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water. Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on. Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend. I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation. I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-142600cc226f4797b7dd55710281f12f", "input": "Review: This weekend just passed I watched \"28 Weeks Later\" which was very good. After that I watched this film. I have tell you it is one of the most boring so called horror you could ever watch. The scenes were unrealistic, there was no script and no plot. The alien creature was unreal. And the fight scenes mild compared to a school yard fight. And to make it worse the guy named Cody had an uncontrollable loose filthy tongue which distracts attention from the main film.Forget about this movie; rather go and watch 28 Weeks Later.Cheers, Mesake C. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a1b8cac8ef94b1aaeb29c2733651fbb", "input": "Review: This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-99b3846de28843bb83b6e4be7c724fad", "input": "Review: James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd402098dcc34d558df53b1d17699b60", "input": "Review: Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the \"Jeep\" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the \"Jeep\"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60fbf70b9f8f496cb20c80093d654a7f", "input": "Review: I watched this movie on the grounds that Amber Benson rocks and Nick Stahl is generally pretty cool - I figured that any film featuring two actors I like and respect couldn't be all bad. And in that sense, I was right - considering the cringe-making dialogue they were given, both of them perform reasonably well. Not well enough to stop the movie from sucking, you understand, but well enough that I was able to make it through the 75-odd minutes of movie (and that's the main sign of an awful film: when, at 40 minutes through, you're already praying for it to be over).It's hard to know where to start with the problems in \"Taboo\". The dialogue, as mentioned, is appalling; wooden and completely unnatural. January Jones' acting is unbelievably bad, and since she's the character we spend most of our time following around the house, this is an unforgivable flaw. The plot manages to be so convoluted that it makes no sense while simultaneously being so clichéd as to be completely predictable (literally, not one of the major 'twists' in this film would surprise anyone but a toddler). A few interesting shots aside, the director tries far too hard with far too little success, awkward tracking shots and jittery camera-work distracting from what little element of story there is.Three of this movie's stars are awarded for the fact that it contains Amber Benson, and the last is tossed in on the grounds that one of the jokes made me snigger a little bit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1cbff240448446bc863ecc0758032068", "input": "Review: Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a \"100 best\" list.. \"Hustle and Flow\" was great, so was \"Fargo\", and \"Oh, Brother, where art thou,\" from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f620ca2cd2b04353a533ca057b03305f", "input": "Review: Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going \" That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie.\" The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44c2f3c578e74f488d796f4753c012ea", "input": "Review: The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eacda012d5a34356af2a11bcfe5c7dbc", "input": "Review: he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-87b4a72160824a3181ac16b2ef24460b", "input": "Review: I decided to watch this because of the recommendations from this site. I would have to say it was worth the effort. However, you should take heed that this film will go on for 210 minutes. If you don't have the staying power, get it on tape and watch it over a couple of nights.Now to the film, what I say will contain \"spoilers\" and if you don't mind, here goes: Alexandre is a promiscuous bum, a womanizer and a gigolo. He lives with an older woman called Marie. Marie owns a retail shop and she provides for Alex. Alex spends his days at cafés and restaurants. The story reveals that Alex had previously impregnated Gilberte whom he used to live with. Gilberte dumped him for a less attractive man that she did not love because Alex had abused and battered her. At this point, Alex was willing to get a job and and help raise their child before he found out Gilberte had aborted it and planned to marry someone else. By chance, Alexandre meets a nurse nymph called Veronika and they striked up a relationship. Veronika fell in love with Alex for the first time after all the sordid sex she had with men in the past. Marie and Veronika struggles for Alex's affection and had a ménage à trois to boot. Finally at the end, it's revealed Veronika is pregnant with Alex's child and Alex asked her to marry him. We assume (as aforesaid with Gilberte's situation) Alexandre will even get a job and be the provider for his new found love and family. There is hope! With the title of \"La Maman et la putain\", I deduce Jean Eustache was relating to Françoise Lebrun's character of Veronika. She was a whore and then she became the mother. Hence, the mother and whore is the same person? Anyway, what do I know! French films are mostly (not all) very chatty, aimlessly political, preaching, theatrical, insipid, lamenting and full of quotes. Lebrun and Léaud played their obdurate characters well and held the film together as some part of the script became a little lost and disjointed. Not a bad effort. 7/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa097fdb3acb433f986dff6b56052937", "input": "Review: I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The \"suspense\" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b50bc7b8b8cf4caab4e82cd6c49aa357", "input": "Review: Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f47df05095045939354d1ffd8674dc2", "input": "Review: I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f351bd014cc4f54ad024599598ae075", "input": "Review: Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a \"religious picture.\" Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a \"message picture.\" It flopped everywhere.Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5991f1d5509a4c26a7776ee1cb17c193", "input": "Review: Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a34af3c4b4bd44dfb8a863cfdbccbfff", "input": "Review: I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. \"Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus.\" I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused \"tension\" with \"boredom\".I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's \"bloodthirsty\" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says \"I'm in pain, shoot me\". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.(Rhetorical pause.)In the stomach. \"Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f12ffda50df48828a15ffbec31b7617", "input": "Review: Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85c9b6a8a3cf4379a433266256f8e919", "input": "Review: I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5385ab39996c4c15b27bff57487ae231", "input": "Review: I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0629e6a79aac4378b16c826936042841", "input": "Review: What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, \"prison mating ritual\" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding \"Ben Gazzara,\" introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78f27018314348efae44f71249faf3d9", "input": "Review: Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first halfhour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going tohappen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how theirseemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But whenthe writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, theymistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstillfor the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it onlygot worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeoushunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do withthe plot, but without them, at least there would have been oneattractive cast member to remember. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3749da4ba0624c42b1b529bc02732169", "input": "Review: This film quite literally has every single action movie cliche and all of them work to its advantage. Straight from Lethal Weapon Gary Busey wisecracks, shoots and chuckles through this film with such reckless abandonment it can't help but amuse and entertain. There are tanks, helicopters, machine gun battles, grenades and ice cream vans and if they aren't good enough reasons to watch this film then how about the best one...Danny Trejo. And if you don't know who Danny Trejo is then you probably won't like this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e14d68af68d743479684ef8f3cb617d1", "input": "Review: Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream… The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered… The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know… Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00b3d4ab03814fd3ba6da8cc6a2ae119", "input": "Review: I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c97f43058814de28572f3efcab8f9b7", "input": "Review: This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e30bc0bdfcfc420aa2bf77da61f19662", "input": "Review: I never wanted to see this film, then one day, for a joke I watched it to see how bad it was; my preconceptions were confirmed.For starters I'd like to question the politics of the film. It hides behind of mask of women 'making it big in the city' but the only way that women can make it big is through using their sexuality rather than their intelligence or skills. These women are nothing more the whores. Are slightly less attractive girls not allowed to be successful? This is not the only right wing message of the film, there are hundreds of shots of American flags and huge wads of cash. A fine example of how the only powerful thing in America is capitalism and anything of spiritual, moral or artistic value is not even given a look in of this film. Money is depicted as the only important thing to young people.The manageress of the bar states that she does not allow drug users in her bar, and then she goes on to poor gallons of hard liquor down her own neck and then the necks of her staff and customers. Any one who knows anything about intoxicants will know that liquor can be just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than most illegal drugs.And finally, why are scenes in which the lead character is a point of sexual interest to the audience (when she is getting undressed or with her boyfriend) is her father always involved? We watch get her undressed with the camera virtually caressing her legs while she is one the phone to her father. She 'auctions' her father just as she 'auctions' her boyfriend. I find this most strange.In conclusion, this film is immoral, fascistic, degrading to women and frankly, disturbing. But what else do you expect from Jerry Bruckhiemer? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfaf654806424e239ed9264c7f4b63ed", "input": "Review: Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae46a6ff6a13491287fff24169f02fc1", "input": "Review: It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final \"survivor\" from very early on. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-569d22331d784b07a98bba1fd42e4e39", "input": "Review: There's some very clever humour in this film, which is both a parody of and a tribute to actors. However, after a while it just seems an exercise in style (notwithstanding great gags such as Balasko continuing the part of Dussolier, and very good acting by all involved) and I was wondering why Blier made this film. All is revealed in the ending, when Blier, directing Claude Brasseur, gets a phone call from his dad (Bernard Blier) - from heaven, and gets the chance to say how much he misses him. An effective emotional capper and obviously heartfelt. But there isn't really sufficient dramatic tension or emotional involvement to keep the rest of the film interesting throughout it's entire running time. Some really nice scenes and sequences, however, and anyone who likes these 'mosntres sacrés' of the French cinema should get a fair amount of enjoyment out of this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-928617e9cbcd47709a2b3c3aa3bc5691", "input": "Review: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-152a42a7184b4b33ab7067c15c91d6af", "input": "Review: I.Q., in my opinion, is a sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you. If you ask me, James (Stephen Fry) really was a dull guy. To me, Ed (Tim Robbins) was more suited for Catherine (Meg Ryan) than James was. Anyway, everyone involved in this film did an absolutely outstanding job. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you to any Tim Robbins or Meg Ryan fan who hasn't seen it. You're in for lots of laughter, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cc2ee566b3c409c8ff58bc22282b0f2", "input": "Review: ''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed105386ccd547c58a1e6b6d873bc636", "input": "Review: I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37b553e8b5044bf58a3b0f1ae250c8a8", "input": "Review: This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5a3968ba96b46619cb56216f11e048e", "input": "Review: Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da1ca86e2ed44c53b757d7cfd8b6ae16", "input": "Review: Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the\"High Fat Diet\" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary..... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94ecbf8352b1490d929203bab3634bb7", "input": "Review: After the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal. The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa518be107024369a3fd5502780698f8", "input": "Review: I caught this movie on FX last night, and as I was sitting there watching it, it occurred to me that it could quite possibly be the worst movie ever. Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sound, totally unbelievable fight sequences, stupid characters. All these made it up to be the most laughably bad movie I've ever seen. It was so bad, I was enthralled by it's sheer lack of anything semi-competent that I had to keep watching... and they made a sequel! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7ccd64e1f5348739db10e3beb43412e", "input": "Review: This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-10354501a3f14a5eaed79c02f542b435", "input": "Review: How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.Patrick Watson Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7de424bfbb6400f81ce902fc9de7a3d", "input": "Review: This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said \"let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed\". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9244d7b32b9b4ad4b0f97ac6ae033cda", "input": "Review: While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is \"racy\". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d034947d283749359e211f42344a1a28", "input": "Review: From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9b2e2006d7c40839df39ab96dec4079", "input": "Review: very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ef6035ae53647dcb6f34a8b804fb1b9", "input": "Review: Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers! Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3a0585d0ff546ef85c5f8104df8cc2b", "input": "Review: Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.Don't believe me? links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20581b904ef34b3a9b37c3c81c9772fd", "input": "Review: This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9523ed624a1b46898d3942288861367e", "input": "Review: The H.G. Wells Classic has had several Incarnations. The 05' Speilburg Version and the classic 53' version But only this one stays completely true to the book. Nothing is changed nothing is removed.Originally Released as a 3-hour film. The director Re-Cut the film down to 2-hours of pure excellence. Its got a chapter by chapter visualization of the novels pages that \"Wells would be Proud Of\" The story is as everyone remembers. Martians Invade the Earth with Capsules containing an army of Tripod walking War Machines. The people of 19th century earth are ill-prepared to repel the alien forces and fight back with canons and guns who mes shells bound right off the Walkers and when humanity is no longer a world wide power they are saved by the smallest of organisms on earth.The Film is an excellent accomplishment for director Timothy Hines who has great potential as he brought this vision to life with a meager 5 Million budget. Today B-Movies have larger budgets. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e710fc0519e141f3a3cd4918621bed79", "input": "Review: THE JIST: See something else.This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy \"noir\" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ff664f1746e4e938633bdd3a5ae63ce", "input": "Review: There are people claiming this is another \"bad language\" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of \"Cero y van cuatro\" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider \"Tamales de Chivo\" the best one.The movie is deeper than some \"cabrón\" and \"pendejo\" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a527904aeae44b59af95d7e23f5dd314", "input": "Review: One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon \"Amazing Grace\" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss (\"But it's one a.m.\" \"I don't care, get him on the line\") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why \"Amazing Grace\" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, \"I never told you this, but I'm proud of you.\" Cue hug. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5a07faebc084d39b0a2fb63fd665ac3", "input": "Review: First, let me say that Notorious is an absolutely charming film, very lovingly rendered of its time and subject(s). Gretchen Mol is utterly, painfully convincing, the very soul of the contradictions smoothly reified by Ms. Page herself. Irving and Paula Klaw are richly drawn as the working-class stiffs they were (having met Paula at Movie Star News in 1990 I can say that Lili Taylor's performance is unimpeachable), and Jared Harris as John Willie (Coutts) is an adoringly debauched genius. Anyone with an interest in the recorded history of American attitudes toward sexuality must see this movie, in a theater preferably, where votes made with dollars count more.Second, I will allow that I am a producer of material similar to that for which the Klaws would become famous, which is no way affects my estimation of Ms. Harron's work as the splendid piece that it is, but does condition my view of Notorious as an act of political resistance of the first order. Ms. Harron has crafted a work of subtle subversion. Along with V for Vendetta, it is a movie about another time for our times.Few readers of this site will be aware that the government they will see enacted in Notorious (through transcription of the very words uttered in closed Senate committee hearings) is a very close approximation of the one they live under right now. While Ms. Harron expressly disallows that she has a political agenda appended to this film, her faithfulness to the facts, and the respectful and unsensational way in which she renders them, synchronizes Notorious with the present day. The very acts that Notorious portrays in loving and accurate detail are defined as obscene by the Communications Decency Act, recently brought to the Supreme Court as a First Amendment case and turned back there at the behest of the Bush administration. In other words, the delicate and ineffectual bondage depicted in Notorious is indictable today by Federal prosecutors in whatever (hostile) jurisdiction they choose. Of course, there were no hearings in the Senate or elsewhere on this matter when the CDA was passed. Of course you know nothing about it, because you don't want people in Peoria telling you what you can and cannot look at (likewise, people in Peoria probably don't want me telling them what they're allowed to view). Of course Notorious will never be indicted. It's Hollywood. It's lawyered up. Countless Klaws will, however, continue to be steamrolled by a puritanical bureaucracy that has not advanced its aesthetic, moral or biological composition much in 50+ years.In addition, Notorious posts no 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, which is mandated by the unnoticed \"earmark\" recently voted into law. If any media contains images of \"sadomasochistic restraint\" it is required to make available (ex warrant) records of age and circumstance of all performers. Notorious fails in this regard also.In addition to being a splendid piece of entertainment and an (nearly) accurate historical document, Notorious will be the litmus against which the Bush Justice Department is itself judged with respect to the 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment and on perhaps several other Constitutional grounds. In this regard alone, a debt of gratitude is owed Mary Harron. You'll be grateful in any case, Constitutional or otherwise, if you see this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2d587d175fb4b06aced87191fbef61a", "input": "Review: I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is \"the mundane life is worth living\", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-edc775e4bc7b4ecf8a502fd531d2c258", "input": "Review: Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - \"Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven.\" As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-752a13d5436d4b22893e2e530cd63344", "input": "Review: Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.*** out of **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c03632808de74a67b61ea9477737996b", "input": "Review: I first saw this movie about 20 years ago and have never forgotten it. It's beautifully filmed and the story keeps one riveted for the entire time. It's difficult to believe this was made in 1946, as the tale is still fresh today, and really makes one think. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding film technique however the special effects in this film are terrific considering when this was made. In addition, the acting is superb, and the use of English and American actors quite astounding. I recently purchased the DVD so now I'm able to watch whenever I wish. I highly recommend anyone interested in post-war British films to watch this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcde1777ae3946968893664442bd0e28", "input": "Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's \"Elm Street 4\", and \"Die Hard 2\" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in \"Ricochet\", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in \"Days of Thunder\", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5418b329079477b93fc951933d7f2cf", "input": "Review: As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-965f5ae654df4b0fa50aac903cbd4503", "input": "Review: May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched \"Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America\". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of \"What's up Tiger Lily?\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b465f10066d34cc99e5510ef870788bd", "input": "Review: I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bbe8f5370b541bf9c1fae566d87dedc", "input": "Review: A propaganda film for the Palestinian \"cause\". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d83a9d1740ac41409c4f83a6c00cf764", "input": "Review: Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV \"Movies of the Week\" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including \"Crowhaven Farm\", \"Bad Ronald\", \"Satan's School for Girls\", \"Kolchak the Night Stalker\", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3eeb1cc5842b4537b8b2e2f6686e124c", "input": "Review: A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic \"I Spit on Your Grave\". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcb6f00ae2694180809c1faa724c6b23", "input": "Review: Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4050bd4cd4b486c96495641b5db5c6f", "input": "Review: What can one say about Elvira that hasn't already been said in the world's press? The classic comedienne that IS Elvira delivers in her first full-length big budget comedy masterpiece.From the very first movie frame thingy, Elvira packs an acting punch that clearly says Film Great....eat your heart out, Bette Davis! See a forlorn Elvira, see an excitable Elvira, see a jealous Elvira, see a murderous Elvira. You can do nothing but marvel at her acting prowess!At the heart of this comedy masterpiece is Elvira's desire for Las Vegas show stardom. Despite putting \"the boob back in the boobtube\" as a horror hostess (with the mostest), Elvira finds the small screen constrictive emotionally....and PHYSICALLY! Nuff said, she packs up her kitbag and heads East....a hotdog in one hand and a letter from her Aunt's lawyer outlining her inheritance 'windfall' in the other.I've seen this movie so many times, I can almost recite it verbatim....(verbatim would just be showing off)!Grab a copy, laugh yourself silly, learn the lines....Why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar for this role is beyond me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd9b183e4bc54482918ba5a7545e9bc2", "input": "Review: Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the \"regents\" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the \"right\" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcf0fa89bba94a65983d4c6be2eb6e02", "input": "Review: I loved \"The Curse of Frankenstein\" so much that I rushed out to get \"Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed\" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of \"If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all\"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the \"creature\", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.Also, there are virtually no \"horror\" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of \"letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show\", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few \"horrific\" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did \"Curse\" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch \"The Curse of Frankenstein\" and see a truly great Hammer horror film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-558dc712b39848b49faff9d5217347f1", "input": "Review: Wow, here it finally is; the action \"movie\" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly \"Matrix\" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeca2283287c4a6ba993431f31de7763", "input": "Review: Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. It was so slow and awfully strange. Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent. Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry! Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him. Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling. I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of \"The greatest actresses of our time\" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0624ccf5c6a24dc1b6da21fe3884defb", "input": "Review: This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6956a061dfe4bc0abad87d47dc9b938", "input": "Review: Very good point there : \"only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb\" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;).. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3701f7127ac4496b91ec1986adfb5f58", "input": "Review: It takes a little while to get used to Nick Nolte's Nebraskan locutions before we can easily accept him as a famous intercontinental playwright. Once you get past the bar, it turns into a fascinating story of a man who loses everything while trying to do good.Nolte, an American, moves to Germany, marries a famous actress, and is a satisfied success in every respect until war is about to break out. He's visited by a jovial American, John Goodman, who persuades him to accept a post as an anti-Semitic radio broadcaster for the Nazis. Nolte has no politics but thinks it's a challenge to write a role that's almost impossible and then play it himself. Another American secret agent will modify Nolte's radio scripts -- inserting a cough here, a sneeze there -- that will serve as a code for the transmission of intelligence to the Allies. There's a catch, though. Nobody will know about Nolte's real role as an American agent except Goodman, Donovan, and Roosevelt himself. If he's ever uncovered, he'll be refused recognition by the Americans.Nolte plunges ahead and his vicious broadcasts are wildly popular in Germany. His adored wife, Sheryl Lee, knows nothing of what's going on, nor does she care. Nolte and Lee live in what he repeatedly refers to as \"a nation of two.\" The war ends and the trouble begins. He's captured by Americans who are bitter because of his betrayal. They beat him and leave him in the mud. He's rescued by Goodman, his \"fairy godmother\", who sends him to an anonymous existence in Greenwich Village and sends him a little cash now and then.By 1960, he manages to cultivate a friendship with his neighbor, the painter Alan Arkin, who has also lost his family and claims the two now belong to a secret brotherhood. But his location and his identity somehow leak out and he is more or less adopted by a group of ancient Aryan racists -- led by a dentist and a priest. His house front and mailbox are painted with swastikas and accusations. He's beaten senseless by an ex-GI. But -- miraculously -- his beloved wife is returned to him by the ancient Aryans. Another catch: it turns out later that it's not his wife, but rather her younger sister who has loved him since adolescence.The ending has him typing his memoirs in an Israeli jail in 1967 before his trial for crimes against humanity. It's not a happy ending.Nolte can talk with, but not see, the occupant of the cell above his in jail. It's Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann seems pleasant enough. He advises Nolte that it's a bad habit to type for fifteen straight hours. \"It's important to relax. You must learn to relax.\" Nolte laughs out loud and shouts, \"That's how I GOT here.\" The film is filled with such ironies. At one point in their relaxed conversations, Arkin tells him that \"in spite of everything I still think people are good at heart.\" I don't know if the movie was a commercial success but if it wasn't, that's the sort of thing that might have torpedoed it for a younger audience of theater-goers who may never have heard of Anne Frank let alone that supposedly final statement in her diary.The fact is that it's a movie for adults, and patient adults at that. The story moves slowly, there's very little violence, no car chases, no shootings, and people don't seem subject to manic speech pressure. A lot of it will probably slip past viewers who don't open themselves to its deliberate approach. Nolte refers to the war-time relationship between him and his wife as \"a nation of two.\" This is a pretty compact phrase. No doubt anyone could come up with a glib definition but it takes a little concentration to grasp its emotional import.It's a story of a man who loses everything -- his ability to write, his identity, his wife (twice), his sole friend, his country, his self respect. At one point he stops walking along a crowded New York street and simply stands there until after dark, when he is moved along by a curious cop. The reason he stopped is that he simply has no place to go. What Vonnegut is describing is far more than depression. I don't mean to sound condescending but it's the sort of feeling that's hard to understand in your youth. Adolescents might like to THINK they know what's holding Nolte in that one spot, but it really requires maturity and the quickened sense of finiteness that only maturity can bring.Remember Robert Frost's line about home being the place that when you go there they have to take you in? Well no place will take Nolte in. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b06a98441f0040ecb4d1d2800f0aa86c", "input": "Review: I read Schneebaum's book (same title as this film) when it was first published and was deeply moved by his ability to see through the many ways of \"otherness\" (his own and the people of the Amazon with whom he lived and loved) to a way of living a decent life. His subsequent books were not as powerful, but showed his continuing quest. His description of his sexual relations with the men of the tribe was way ahead of its time in the early 60's, but his honesty and openness about it were welcome. This movie beautifully conveys both the quirkiness and generosity of the man, but also provides a glimpse into the inevitable destruction of innocence (which is not a morally positive term, in this case) that occurs when \"civilized\" men intrude on traditional societies. Even so, Schneebaum himself has moved into a kind of higher innocence that suggests the possibility of saving humanity from its own destructiveness. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45ac464b68984d49971dc8b15d315199", "input": "Review: This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in \"The Big Chill\", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c359eb8ca5a645c58fe66437e27efd94", "input": "Review: I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da76ff8429e348a7918d4f4f60785540", "input": "Review: It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb3828cb49c84034b18e58997a170e0b", "input": "Review: It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. \"The Amati Girls\" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since \"For Roseanna\".With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in \"The Amati Girls\". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39c30c07fedc4bdcbf3d432bd3f3d679", "input": "Review: This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51e407e203a048f1a46bd3934379f7a7", "input": "Review: Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for \"millions of years\". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as \"cromosonic anomaly\". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-846bbe45e9ca4c6d8dfd07e5107a9e0f", "input": "Review: THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e7ec3d5a4ef4b128d53b20e30509676", "input": "Review: It's hard to say sometimes why exactly a film is so effective. From the moment I first came across \"The Stone Boy\", something told me it would be a great film. In spite of that, it seemed very unlikely that I'd ever have the opportunity to actually see it for myself. Then, one day, while looking through the online catalogue of my local library, I saw that they had recently purchased the DVD release of this film. Which I'm extremely glad for, because the cinematography is of a stunning depth and quality that an old VHS copy could never replicate.And speaking of the cinematography, I must single it out as far and above the most stunning aspect of this film. As a photographer who pursues very nearly the exact visual style portrayed in \"The Stone Boy\", I'm a firm believer in the fact that a great cinematographer can almost single-handedly carry a film. Here, he has a lot of help from an extremely talented cast, and a director who understands perfectly what the story needs. But to have Juan Ruiz Anchía behind the camera makes virtually every scene something of beauty. And you can almost never say that. Most films would never even expect such a thing of you. Scene after scene captures some detail, some little bit of visual magic that takes your breath away.The director, Christopher Cain, has had a long and interesting career. As far as I can gather, this film is not very representative of it. But, sometimes, to catch a director near the beginnings of his career, before all the big budgets and loss of focus, there's a real subtle magic to be found. Cain steps back in this film, lets things happen with a life of their own, and then ever further. Much like early John Sayles films, characters are given space to breathe, time to talk. Side stories happen because they do, and that's how life is. Cain displays a remarkable, raw, even outright painful understanding of human nature in this film.The acting ties much of this story together. When people talk, when they exist in this film, they do so as actual people, not held back by the fact that they are playing characters. Gina Berriault's script allows immensely talented and respected actors like Wilford Brimley, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Frederic Forrest to spend time simply existing. Whether the things they have to say are minor or of deep significance, it all comes down with the weight of pure reality.When you look at the actors involved, or the great soundtrack by James Horner, it seems strange that such a film be very nearly forgotten. Maybe much of what makes \"The Stone Boy\" what it is was the time period it was made in. There's this 1970s hangover feeling to this picture that reminds me deeply of my own childhood. People talk of the 80s in terms of modern styles and music, but that's not the 80s I lived in or remember. The look of the images, the understated and dark knowing quality of the acting, and the overall result should get under the skin of any person who grew up in or near this era of time in North America. I see myself in this. I see how I saw the world. And a film like \"The Stone Boy\" sees the world for how it truly is.For more of this feeling, please see:The Black Stallion (1979), Never Cry Wolf (1983), Tender Mercies (1983), Testament (1983), Places in the Heart (1984), Matewan (1987), High Tide (1987), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Secret Garden (1993), The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), Wendy and Lucy (2008) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d15fae4ee3048f3a06072548838ec39", "input": "Review: This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fb4bfaed57c46e084b52dd58bc052d3", "input": "Review: Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: \"What does that have to do with this movie?\" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say \"Ha ha, you had sex with your mom,\" which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca0481dc12c743b1ae9e74269688caa7", "input": "Review: I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a \"Master\" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called \"Wrong Turn\" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with \"Right to Die\" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the \"Masters of Horror\" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with \"The Fair Haired Child\" even though his other long feature films \"Fear Dot Com\" and \"House on Haunted Hill\" sucked pretty badly.The story of \"Right to Die\" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of \"The Dentist\") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. \"Right to Die\" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like \"Masters of Horror\". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great \"MoH\" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-667a4aa348cf4bf7a17663b8c66d2ce0", "input": "Review: THE ITALIAN is an astonishingly accomplished film for its time. Stunningly shot, with lighting effects that are truly sublime, this is an early gem that clearly reveals REGINALD BARKER to be a pioneer director of equal standing to D.W. GRIFFITH and MAURICE TOURNEUR. How much control Thomas Ince exerted over the production is hard to know, but this film still has extraordinary power. The simple story of an Italian immigrant struggling to keep his family alive in New York, is very moving. The themes of social injustice, revenge and forgiveness are completely relevant today. The use of close-ups is outstanding and the powerhouse performance of GEORGE BEBAN is electrifying. What we need now is a really good print transferred to DVD so we can truly appreciate this early masterpiece of cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-905b71b584a443c69e6ad1076dc5debb", "input": "Review: I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the \"role playing\" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1ab999d41dd4f9bbd6d8429197a0e89", "input": "Review: Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make \"The Sealed Room\" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. *** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f0ceb08cfb34e9693ca15a039bcb6dc", "input": "Review: I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying \"What do you want?\" The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from \"I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun\" to \"I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style.\" A very important thing to leave out.Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f1793f44b5b4affabe7e6520cf6cdc9", "input": "Review: One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an \"arthouse\" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2753a2bfa37493587bbf50bb12cf22b", "input": "Review: This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How? 2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day. 3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34bcdd8cfe0f448c82e874f20ca73051", "input": "Review: - A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't \"real\". These scares just don't work.- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these \"actors\" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? - I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-19125664df54484b9299e6e73385cce3", "input": "Review: Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e8839620f534c38b545ab887b4b162c", "input": "Review: Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bf93cbcf5f04accb32c0a8bbc631d49", "input": "Review: Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?I will try anyway. The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified. The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth. During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life \"with a grin on my face.\" Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, \"God forgive me for the time I've wasted.\" Bravi tutti! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3b1b0d442eb478faf3fb905d08b1e7e", "input": "Review: Much like the comedy duo of its title, \"The Sunshine Boys\" has become a forgotten classic 30-odd years later. It's hardly mentioned alongside other great film comedies of the 1970s. This makes no sense given the singular specialness of this film, perhaps the best Neil Simon ever wrote.Walter Matthau plays Willy Clark, once half of a legendary vaudeville comedy known as Lewis and Clark, now a bitter 73-year-old solo act who can't get a job in a potato chip commercial. His nephew and agent Ben (Richard Benjamin) is sure he can get work if Willy will only agree to reunite with his estranged partner Al Lewis (George Burns) for an ABC-TV celebration of show business nostalgia.Nostalgia is what \"Sunshine Boys\" has going for it in spades, right from the start when a series of 1920s film clips showcasing various entertainers from long ago flickers before us to the accompaniment of Cole Porter's \"Be A Clown\". Then there's the film's present-day setting in Manhattan, where flared trousers and wide polyester ties abound. The periods collide in Willy's glorious mess of a Manhattan apartment, where framed photos and cartoons of long-dead celebrities stare out from the walls at lurid tabloid headlines and empty Zabar grocery bags. If you were alive in the 1970s like me, you might even feel like you were in that apartment.Willy clearly has been living there too long. He's sleeping in front of the television when the kettle in the other room boils. Willy wakes up and picks up the phone.\"Hello, who is this?\" A pause. \"Never mind, it's the tea.\"Old men living alone can be sad material in almost anyone else's hands, but Simon's deft wit and unerring feeling for character turns this adaptation of his 1972 stage hit into comedy gold. The amazing thing about \"The Sunshine Boys\" is how much it rubs your noses in Willy's almost existential condition without turning you off at all. \"89 years old and just like that, he dies of nothing'\" Willy says of one old songwriting friend, before deciding the man probably died from writing a song that rhymed \"lady\" with \"baby\".Burns won an Oscar for his understated performance as the gentle but steely Lewis, but it's Matthau who brings this one home, his make-up and proud but ragged bearing really selling you on the idea he was already 73 when he made this. Willy is obnoxious in the extreme, fully deserving Ben's description \"crazy freakin' old man\", but you root for him throughout, enjoying his small victories even when they come at the cost of others' patience. His lines kill you, too, especially when he's trying to kill Lewis, for whom the TV reunion turns out to be a bad idea.\"You're out of touch!\" Willy tells Lewis at one point. \"I'm still in demand. I'm still hot!\"\"If this room was on fire you wouldn't be hot,\" Lewis replies.Director Herbert Ross shoots everything in a very casual and understated way, with low lighting and mid-range shots even in emotional moments so as to leave room for the comedy and the film's overall zen message of grace through quiet acceptance. You never get the feeling you are watching a movie, one of \"The Sunshine Boys\" many charms, and Ross's direction, like the acting of the three principals, goes a long way toward achieving that end.Comedy is hard, especially when the subjects are people watching life pass them by, but \"The Sunshine Boys\" makes it all seem a pleasure, because, for us watching, it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c8de78cef3647c592e9bd3743f63128", "input": "Review: i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not \"good, clean fun.\" the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-518d54afc68c43fb815aa5c5c1c73196", "input": "Review: If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the \"respectable\" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95af7bfb005e481ba2f060cfd8dbb6fe", "input": "Review: I've seen this movie, when I was traveling in Brazil. I found it difficult to really understand Brazilian culture and society, because it has so many regional and class differences. To see this movie in Sao Paulo itself was a revelation. It shows something of the everyday life of many Brazilians. On the other side, it is sometimes a little bit over-dramatized. And that's the only negative comment I have on this film. It's sometimes too much, too much sex, too many murders and too much cynicism for one film. The director could film some things a bit more subtle, it would make the film more effective.Despite this I liked the movie and the way the story unravels itself. The characters are complex, and very much like real-life people. Not pretty American actors and actresses with a lot of cosmetics, but people who could be ugly and beautiful at the same time. That makes the film realistic, even when the story is not that convincing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bcbd1279ef04ec0b75c553fb7f670e4", "input": "Review: I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did \"Revenge of the Nerds\" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after \"Return of the Jedi\" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a \"Nerd\" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-45a7bb21c56f4af4ab3c4da3504d8b4f", "input": "Review: In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fd6b17170e3484e9b78b41c381f0533", "input": "Review: Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some \"brain grain cereal\" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans…My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem… Enjoy! :-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-16d9735273a84564a8713dd7fc832962", "input": "Review: Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The \"stars\" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, \"Jinx\", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab37514434aa45e7a1417f64072f3b9d", "input": "Review: I was very moved by the story and because I am going through something similar with my own parents, I really connected. It is so easy to forget that someone whose body is failing was once vibrant and passionate. And then there's the mistakes they made and have to live with. I loved Ellen Burstyn's performance and who is Christine Horne? She's fantastic! A real find. There is probably the most erotic scene I've ever seen in a film, yet nothing was shown - it was just so beautifully done. Overall the look and feel of the film was stunning, a real emotional journey. Cole Hauser is very very good in this picture, he humanizes a man spiraling downwards. I liked the way the filmmaker approached this woman's life, never sentimental, never too much - just enough to hook us in, but not enough to bog down. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-980b6e8e243c4edf9f4eb27f3e1c352e", "input": "Review: A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance. I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their \"selective memories\" and \"selective vision\". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bea7dbc3c6e649f2b27d7db370f482db", "input": "Review: To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88838694da824b2f87b9a5a743a09c2d", "input": "Review: OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of \"Matlock.\" I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d6c08d05f33441194311c443fb125c0", "input": "Review: Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-087943fac2b646a1bebe566d560f7d7b", "input": "Review: ....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say \"WHY?\". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a \"Worst Movie Party\", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91370b51ecbb479c9be7db09a9def5e2", "input": "Review: I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3a96def7cea4b078ee10368ff5f3331", "input": "Review: Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a52b5b9a2f464805bb3b9349fd64203d", "input": "Review: I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking \"wtf?\". Scenes like those you will find plenty. Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4716bbb152eb4afc83b6cdc9f86285c2", "input": "Review: I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie \"Far North\", and even though I loved her in her one other film \"Slow\" (2004) where she plays \"Francis\", this is by far and away her strongest role.Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of \"Driver\".Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: \"You son-of-a-gun!\", \"You son-of-a-witch!\", \"Shoot!\", and \"Well, Forget You!\"O.K. Bye.P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6a5722cb41342cfb1d74f51964507c8", "input": "Review: I've seen Mystery Men cop a bit of stick in the press and with the general public ( take the imdb vote for instance), but my overall feeling is that Mystery Men is more fun than most films, definitely wittier than most so-called comedy films and very nearly 'clever'.The cast is superb; Greg Kinnear is excellent, as are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Waits. Kinnear's limo scene with Ricky Jay is perfect 'spoiled movie star' and he imbues his character with the right balance of comic book quality and realism to make him work.I will admit the pacing is a little off in places, and visuals are certainly very flash bang, possibly to the detriment of further characterisation, but at the end of the day, this is high concept film making - it's about the little moments \"What's Up Tiger Lily?\" - and there are so many great ones in this film to make it worth repeated viewing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68eb8d05668d41a2bb14906f62eceb92", "input": "Review: WHEN I first saw this film, in London, in 1958, I was bowled over. I had never seen a film like this before. It had a strange, hypnotic effect, quite unlike the films that I had seen previously and it left a lasting impact.I believe that Odile Versios & Marina Vlady are sisters, if not twins. Certainly the interaction is amazing in its power to influence the viewer.If this has been converted to DVD - in Region 2 format - and in the original French language, I would love to hear about it & where it can be purchased. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d29da09ea92942ccb326711e95235de6", "input": "Review: Heather Graham couldn't play a convincing lesbian if her life depended on it. Who do the producers of the movie think they are? the ABSOLUTE WORST, most UNREALISTIC movie i've seen in as long as i can remember. This movie is so bad that i felt compelled to sign-up on IMDb and make sure the rating of this \"film\" drops.omg i'm Heather Graham, i just kissed a drunk chick, so while she's passed out i'm REALLY going to pace around my room for HOURS asking myself frantically \"WHAT HAVE I DONE?!\".. Jesus heather, get over it and grow up... and i'd like to forward that same sentiment to the idiot producers... and while i'm at it, instead of this movie being all about an pathetic excuse for a coming out story, perhaps it would have been more suitable to focus the plot onto a character who's mentally unstable... like your so-called \"lesbian\" character... after all, i know the first time i had gay sex, when i left the next morning i jumped to the sky in excitement in the middle of the street... honestly b*tch, get a grip... WHAT A JOKE! and please note there are many many many more flaws and appallingly stupid aspects to this lame flick, but i'm so sick of even thinking about it anymore. bottom line, if you're a smart person you'll hate this movie, and if you're not a smart person, then you'll love it... it's as simple as that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c87c8f45df340e79babdd67a189c421", "input": "Review: One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: \"It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?\" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie \"The World Famous Singer\" and Little Edie \" The World Famous Dancer.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b87ba0d4d976430d98103f2255cd9a3b", "input": "Review: I just read the plot summary and it is the worst one I have ever read. It does not do justice to this incredible movie. For an example of a good summary, read the listing at \"Turner Classic Movies\". Anyway, this was one of my favorite movies as a young child. My sister and I couldn't wait until every April when we could see it on T.V. It is one of the best horse movies of it's time. It is one of those great classics that the whole family can watch. The romance is clean and endearing. The story line is interesting and the songs are great. They don't make movies like this anymore. Good acting and not over the top. Pat Boone and Shirley Jones are at their best, along with many other great character actors. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a577c32381247ff815405a0d514f9f2", "input": "Review: Cusack does his best David Niven in this one, although I don't know if anyone besides me noticed it.When seen with this in mind, its a deliciously over saturated 'wants to be taken more seriously than Austin powers but still be pretty d*mn funny' reworking of an under-appreciated comedy classic.Hillary Duff does an over sexualized Britney spears lap dance version of Mata Bond. The writers built a little reverse Oedipus twist into the plot - interesting choice.I never knew how soothing Montel's voice was until this movie... I think he has found a new calling doing nav system voice overs! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5c69cf2d1f74f4e8e7e9fe7dc7837c5", "input": "Review: Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.\"Gung Ho\" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c438d2d35f3d496ea620095c5b39c435", "input": "Review: To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the ‘order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a ‘retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story. You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool – feelgood ending.As for Nicolas Cage, well… He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, ‘cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.7 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeb04cae950b46e7821fba3f2add8328", "input": "Review: She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30a66ca5398b4ac39d11eb464c6aeadc", "input": "Review: OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The \"twist\"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for \"plagues\" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the \"shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a0c0a6ae5494468860192e53d9f94b4", "input": "Review: For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23f0e55979e14f0e98560109e07c7554", "input": "Review: Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b1e2631d2624f6da47ec1f53712b978", "input": "Review: Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of \"An Inconvenient Truth.\" So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at \"An Inconvenient Truth\" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed \"global Warming\" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is \"getting warmer\" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a \"New Ice Age\". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed \"Global Warming.\" Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced \"An Inconvenient Truth\" were really honest, they would have titled their film \"Al Gore Wants Attention.\" But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled \"Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-581a377c2bdc47349acc96ae9ea36aa6", "input": "Review: I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a49758832b1f416388799635af56c706", "input": "Review: Not wishing to give *anything* away here, I would just say this technically excellent, flawlessly acted and uplifting little flic will reward the viewer with an excellent hour and a half's entertainment: It will amuse, surprise, possibly embarrass occasionally and almost certainly tug at the heartstrings from time to time, as it approaches the inevitable, but not obvious, ending without becoming clichéd or predictable in any way. Most definitely recommended.A previous User's Comment gives 8 out of 10 for the film and 10 out of 10 for both Branagh and Bonham-Carter's outstanding performances - I agree entirely.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55308e2746684eca86c1261325fdc92a", "input": "Review: OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7528cad27c03425ea2c4bf0e0c574c6b", "input": "Review: Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcc644b49e514adcb55b1504d9ddeafb", "input": "Review: Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of \"Booty Call\", \"Pumpkinhead\", \"Swarm\", and \"The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh\". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question \"who was so stupid to finance such a whale?\" But then, had good judgment prevailed and \"Final Justice\" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in \"Mystery Science Theatre 3000\"! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e57d9761a6824774bd56bafbd2432014", "input": "Review: I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. \"Dream to Believe\" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52d3d625afad4ea2a0d9f783283dfaed", "input": "Review: Okay so I went into this movie not really expecting much I figured an action flick similar to The Fast and the Furious. Some nice cars some nice girls somewhat of a decent plot. Unfortunately I would have to say that this was probably the worst movie I have seen this year. Don't get me wrong the cars were nice and the girls were OK but the way they put the movie together was just plain crappy to put it nicely. The story just never made you care about the cast and the movie seemed just pieced together. So overall this movie was not the worst thing ever by far but if your looking for a movie to go to this weekend I would pass on this one for now. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-453c9a793e024a5e8c512314f3dca2e4", "input": "Review: The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfa4d3292b65434490d946145034864c", "input": "Review: CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6408d1a566d4d748b5e9d133bb1c87f", "input": "Review: Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious \"thing\" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e17ae8e310b404688d0710f14070507", "input": "Review: Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and \"characters\".The \"Incubus\" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5299d434f398472f950e6cda1930a490", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the \"ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58af083cb3394e398666c3baa325a4d4", "input": "Review: This movie was messed up. A sequel to \"John Carpenter's Vampires\", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first \"Vampires\", it's a good movie. \"Vampires: Los Muetos\" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f471f82d3984734b537fd43506dcf51", "input": "Review: OK heres what I say: The movie was excellent. I am a huge Nancy fan and I have read all 1-56 original books and I went on to read more. I am now on 96. Beware of villains giving this movie a lower grade than it should have. All clues point to a wonderful movie! I loved the whole thing. So what Nancy is in current time. She is still old fashioned like she is in the books! People who haven't read more than 5 books are complaining about the view of Nancy. I have read all of them and I think Emma is perfect and that Nancy was perfect. I found parts of the movie spooky. I loved the exciting car chases and get aways. I loved the clues. I solved the mystery myself! It was really wonderful. I suggest you go see it since people who have been complaining know nothing of A what a good movie is and B about Nancy Drew. Go see it. It may not be Oscar worthy but its really a good movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3543674fddda48ccb62c4d5a68e6a290", "input": "Review: What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66c2acc322aa4792921dda9a91aabc4f", "input": "Review: Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.I can see some people saying: \"Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man.\" Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.0/5 stars Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b1cc53a8015420a91ac8685536d600e", "input": "Review: I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ffb9903af6a45c09940c364f3091a97", "input": "Review: I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b804bf79824e4909bfaa26bf9040225a", "input": "Review: This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e54eeb149b9949ed82f8f23d096bd5b9", "input": "Review: I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-953b182a617d45d6811190759f967c03", "input": "Review: One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and \"Gymkata\" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1b9d9e61018438e9a10da5bf387888f", "input": "Review: Undoubtedly one of the great John Ford's masterpieces, Young Mr. Lincoln went practically unnoticed at the time of its initial release, no wonder because the year was 1939 when many of the greatest movies of the whole cinema history had been released, including the most mythical Western in the history of the genre, John Ford's milestone Stagecoach and many others, such as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which took the Oscar in the only category Young Mr. Lincoln was nominated for, which is Original Screenplay. It continued to be the most underrated Ford's film for many years ahead destined to gradually fade away in the shadow of other John Ford's masterpieces, but by the end of the 1950s American and European film critics and historians took a hold of a note written by legendary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein about the Young Mr. Lincoln where he praised it and acknowledged that if he would only have had an opportunity to direct any American film ever made till then, it would be definitely John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. Impressed by such an undoubted preference from Eisenstein, critics began to see the film again but only with a bit different eyes and film's reputation has been increasing ever since. It was far not for the first time the life of one of the most legendary American presidents was brought to the screen. Right in the beginning of the 1930s Griffith did it in his Abraham Lincoln and the same year as Ford's film, MGM released John Cromwell's one called Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Curiously enough both of them were based on a very successful Broadway Stage Play released in 1938 and written by Robert Sherwood. As far as John Ford's films are concerned, we can easily find many references to the life and deeds and even death of mythical Lincoln's figure in several of director's works, such as 1924 The Iron Horse or 1936 The Prisoner of the Shark Island, the second one, just as Young Mr. Lincoln, utilizes as the main musical theme the favourite Lincoln's song - Dixie. The screenplay based on a previously mentioned Stage Play and Lincoln's biographies was written by Lamar Trotti in collaboration with John Ford himself, which was quite a rare thing for Ford to do but final result was simply superb - a script combining elements of the Play with several historical facts as well as myths and legends about the beginning of Abraham Lincoln's life and law practice culminating in a hilarious but mostly heartbreaking trial scene, which is the film's highest point and main laugh and tears generator, where Lincoln defends the two young brothers accused of a murder and have to devise a manner to help their mother too when she is brought before the court as a witness and where the prosecuting attorney (played by Donald Meek) demands her to indicate which one of her sons actually committed the murder obviously obliging her to the making of an impossible choice of condemning to death one and letting live the other. Overall it's a very touching, heart-warming and even funny film with simply magnificent performance from Henry Fonda in his supreme characterization of Abraham Lincoln and with overwhelming richness of other characters no matter how little or how big they are incarnated from the wonderful and intelligent screenplay and conducted by the ability of John Ford's genius at one of its best deliveries ever. A definite must see for everyone. 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f033247f682c42548635027268f8385f", "input": "Review: This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77972792e1c044439648e0b65ee20e53", "input": "Review: I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b197f940b80742acb976f32518994e41", "input": "Review: This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as \"The Mummy\" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91e5b2d5eb374775bb028c6464614919", "input": "Review: I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, \"riding with the Navajos\" and \"getting caught up in a couple of wars\" - was to \"catch up\" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the \"drunken Indian\"? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0adcdc72764d4e148d3fee410595541b", "input": "Review: It looks to me as if the creators of \"The Class Of Nuke 'Em High\" wanted it to become a \"cult\" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e378605c6e641ff9fe71fc91fdc4c5d", "input": "Review: As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this \"addition\" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next \"blockbuster\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6e6049e222c4cad8d1dc8e2406eabf5", "input": "Review: It was hard for me to believe all of the negative comments regarding this all-star flick. I laughed through the entire picture, as did my entire family. The movie clearly defined itself as an old time gangster comedy--the players were hysterical--I'll bet they had a good old time while making it. Of course Goldblum and Dreyfuss were great--and how about those Everly sisters, each of the two Falco's, and the divine music throughout. Rob Reiner made a great laughing limo driver, and Gabriel Byrne a laughable neurotic. Not to mention Gregory Hines, Burt Reynolds, the Sleepy Joe character and the whole mortuary and grave digger references. Paul Anka was his usual entertaining self, with the added attraction of running scared after Byrne decided to make a duet of his \"My Way\" welcome home to Vick performance.I am of the opinion that this movie was a comical tribute to Frank Sinatra and friends; Dreyfuss imitated him well. I am also of the opinion that no one, of any age, would even think of imitating the actions which occurred in this movie--it's a joke--not a terrifying \"gangsta\" film. The cars and clothing were impressive, as was the decorative, \"Vic's Place.\"Truly, I think of \"Mad Dog Time\" as a musical comedy, less harmful than many cartoons, TV crime dramas, and talk shows. I would recommend the video for an evening of family entertainment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d5c336ac8f04780bc4090aa8efc1d79", "input": "Review: I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie \"experience\" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0521548c9d1a49f69cf98848536427e3", "input": "Review: Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe09e94dd8fd47e1b3ebc2a596fb9b92", "input": "Review: \"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey\" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like \"Old Yeller\", \"Napoleon\", \"Fluke\" and \"Air Bud\". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.Can this possibly be just a \"remake\"? It is too good to be a \"remake\"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama. The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in \"Old Yeller\"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great \"actors\" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.This should definitely be on Top 250. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24c8babf4f174d619fc1be08f3ac8482", "input": "Review: One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of \"The Magnificent Seven\" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81b6ce2db0844175a06a1d5ecf10c36d", "input": "Review: This episode of Twilight Zone combines a silent section (1890) with melodramatic acting and sight gags, an homage to the early Buster Keaton films. Lots of slapstick: Buster falling on a bulkhead door, falling in a puddle, running around pants-less. Silly scientist's invention of a Time Helmet, reminiscent of a Flash Gordon idea of what the future would be. Cheap prices, like $1.95 for ladies hats, or 17 cents a pound for beef seem outrageously high to Buster. Even the world of 1890 is too much for Buster/Mulligan. How shocking when he is mistakenly transported to the \"modern\" world of 1960! Buster was trying to go backwards! The \"scientist\" of that time wants to return to a calmer world, the 1890 that he has studied and admired. They go back together, and Buster/Mulligan is now happy and the \"scientist\" regrets not having electronic equipment, modern beds or an electric blanket. So Buster sends him back with the crazy helmet.This Twilight Zone doesn't have a heavy message. Since Buster Keaton died in 1966, it is one of his last efforts. That's enough.One other cute thing--longtime underutilized Maytag Man Jesse White is a repairman who fixes the Time Helmet--foreshadowing his washing machine career. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01f2d5c67f9c45ccb5eb67e05308fd1a", "input": "Review: The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with \"Young Mr. Lincoln:\" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.It's a nice watch, but not a classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdfb438d7a4749268f88e010b465180c", "input": "Review: We've been served - a terrible film.Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the \"competitive world of step-dancing,\" I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.And, boy, have I just seen it.Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, (\"A Touch of Pink\"), \"How She Move\" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.I'll try to give a small synopsis of the \"plot.\" First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. There are a few other guys in this \"crew,\" including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in \"Malcolm X.\" There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old \"Flip Wilson Show.\" One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big \"Step Monster\" jam in Detroit.Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like \"Rocky\" with a really bad soundtrack, \"Rudy\" with annoying rap music in the background, \"Cry Freedom\" without the laughs. But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, \"How she moves\"?I was \"moved\" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cb91480a05f4426b4d07345ef224ab6", "input": "Review: Released in December of 1957, Sayonara went on to earn 8 Oscar nominations and would pull in 4 wins. Red Buttons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in his role as airman Joe Kelly who falls in love with a Japanese woman while stationed in Kobe during the Korean War. Oscar nominated for Best Leading Actor, Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd Gruver, a Korean War flying ace reassigned to Japan, who staunchly supports the military's opposition to marriages between American troops and Japanese women and tries without any success to talk his friend Joe Kelly out of getting married. Ironically Marlon Brandos character soon finds love of his own in a woman of Japanese descent. This movie highlights the prejudices and cultural differences of that time. Filmed in beautiful color and with stunning backgrounds I found this movie to be well worth watching just for these effects alone. Good movie, gimme more...GimmeClassics Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-334f0c7782f64015b22a5aef053e2a10", "input": "Review: Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dffdad7d49a2427e9605f2373292b529", "input": "Review: I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d70ee8a59154660ac3b830b4dc520a6", "input": "Review: I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-829fbce2367e4a70a818cedc64b815c5", "input": "Review: Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining! I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f48adfa321b3443892633cdae1bdb13d", "input": "Review: As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-62847e3a97ee4e4b9bfe86b8fa140828", "input": "Review: Another rape of HistoryThis movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d39d22637a3348e88d17af27ecddd110", "input": "Review: Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-222d8c92e0764b0baf9c80c63ea91420", "input": "Review: What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56716012f4dd4fe9a131df99118aa47b", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the \"hero\" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting \"hero\" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43a6b02f33dc439fa40ef24dbc2da1f8", "input": "Review: Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. \"L'Intrus\" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as \"Trouble Every Day\" or \"J'ai pas sommeil.\"Now, ever since I saw \"Chocolat,\" I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. \"L'Intrus\" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from \"Trouble Every Day\" and \"J'ai pas sommeil,\" Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in \"Beau Travail\"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked \"Friday Evening\" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of \"L'Intrus.\" Otherwise, steer clear. I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In \"Chocolat\" the silence is sublime; in \"L'Intrus,\" it's just dull. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf090bcc81e646ccaf99a08edb0bbe3f", "input": "Review: Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ccab47773d846dd932b12b4a5d5f423", "input": "Review: I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ff9ff0241b542cca84406cb07c89b25", "input": "Review: If my expectations weren't exceeded, they were certainly met. \"Nancy Drew\" works both as a mystery and a comedy. It pays homage to the books it was based on and spoofs them at the same time. The movie starts with a close-up on a book shelf and an animated credit sequence resembling illustrations from the books. It then begins lampooning the books immediately. Writer/director Andrew Fleming seems to realize the idea of a teenage girl regularly breaking up crime rings in a small town is ridiculous, so he doesn't treat the idea religiously. He pokes fun at Nancy Drew's ability to do anything, such as ace every class in school, know which baked treat is perfect for converting any enemy to her side, make a bird house with twelve flying buttresses, and even perform an emergency tracheotomy at a party. Nancy'd always be in perfect style, if she were living in the wholesome 1950's instead of present day L.A. And she carries around a \"sleuth kit\" complete with fingerprinting dust, flashlight, compass, and magnifying glass. Preposterous, of course, but I seem to remember the Hardy Boys' access at any given moment to CSI equipment being a little too convenient as well. And if the perky pipsqueak private eye is a little younger than her literary counterpart, it's just more comedic exaggeration on the movie's part.The mystery of the movie is handled more seriously. Nancy and her lawyer father move from their small town to Los Angeles, where Nancy digs into a cold case involving the murder of a Hollywood movie star who lived in her new house decades ago. Nancy searches for clues in some pretty practical ways, such as surfing websites like Google and this one and watching old videotapes of the victim's movies. When she does something more out of the ordinary, you have to admire the girl's resourcefulness. Emma Roberts, an undeniably cute kid, plays the pint-sized amateur sleuth beautifully. She makes the too-perfect girl completely lovable, if not completely realistic. Tate Donovan is also great as the too-perfect girl's father, Carson Drew. He's an ideal father figure without being unrealistically perfect, and he shows reasonable concern for his daughter as she gets into danger. Less likable is Max Thierot's take on Ned Nickerson, Nancy's boyfriend. I much preferred George O'Hanlon Jr.'s portrayal in the 1970's TV series starring Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew, in which Ned was a gawky, awkward kid with a little crush on Nancy. The character of Corky (Josh Flitty), a twelve-year old with a crush on Nancy, is much less annoying than Max Thierot's Ned. Amy Bruckner and Kay Panabaker seem appropriately cast as Nancy's gal pals Bess and George, but they only make brief cameos at the beginning of the film.Speaking of cameos, Chris Kattan (SNL), Eddie Jemison (\"Ocean's 13\"), and Bruce Willis all make surprise guest appearances, which just proves you never can guess which movie Bruce Willis will pop up in next.The movie does fail to live up to some potential. It's mentioned early on that the Drews' new house is heavily booby-trapped, but Nancy and her father are done with tripping over booby traps a few minutes after that. Also, Nancy describes the cold case she's about to investigate as a murder taking place at an extravagant party, which should yield plenty of potential murderers, but she only encounter a handful of suspects. And while there's some moments of real suspense during Nancy's adventures, the solution to the case comes out of nowhere, and in the end all possible plot threads are tied up too conveniently and who-cares-who-done-it. Ralph Sall's score adds to the movie's suspense, but the contemporary teenybopper songs woven into the soundtrack are lame. Still, I really enjoyed this film, and while the movie is aimed primarily at tween girls, people of any age and gender can enjoy it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cce8389596d249f19f57ded61790f006", "input": "Review: Even if you know absolutely nothing about Ireland, you have to love \"My Left Foot\" (and especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in it). He plays cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown. Due to this, he has spent most of his life ostracized. Even when trying to warn people about something, they just laugh at him. The light in the darkness for him is that he has control over one body part: his left foot. He uses that appendage to paint and write poetry, bringing him to prominence.Daniel Day-Lewis and director Jim Sheridan did very well on this collaboration, and also on a later collaboration: \"In the Name of the Father\" (but \"The Boxer\" was unnecessary). \"My Left Foot\" can make you feel many ways: sad, hopeful, or something else. But in any case, Daniel Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime here. A great movie in every sense. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-934cbaf122e04dbbb410b5a385f12fae", "input": "Review: Mild SPOILERS contained herein. I'm spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it. Jet Li's movies fall into one of two categories: Shaolin period movies and movies set in modern-day Hong Kong revolving around Triads or Triad like organizations. Each genre has its best and worst films. `Twin Warriors' is Jet Li's best Shaolin era flick while `The Evil Cult' is his worst. `Fist of Legend' while in the recent past is the best `modern era' Jet Li movie. `Black Mask' without a doubt is the worst.Jet Li plays a self-exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability, but shortens his life span. In his `new life' in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. When his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage, Jet Li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. He dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian, as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex-comrades in arms.The version I saw was dubbed, and horribly at that. Why does Jet Li capture and hold hostage his library co-worker if he's a pacifist? Is there a love story between them? Why does the police chief not care when he learns of the Black Mask's true identity? The plot is just plain BAD. Bad by way of the superhero cheesiness, bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed, bad in its character interactions, all topped off by a half-explained story I quickly lost interest in. The action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. Lots of blood, gore (severed body parts aplenty), explosions, and Matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. Unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. If you want to see Jet Li playing a vigilante superhero in a Mission Impossible style movie `Black Mask' delivers. For the rest of us Jet Li fans it is a true disappointment. This is one of those movies where Jet Li never gets to be Jet Li: he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma, nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability. Normally a Chinese knockoff of Ozzy Osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film, sadly `Black Mask' proved to be an exception to that rule. Indeed the antagonist of this movie, by the way he dresses, his long straight hair, and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged Ozzy Osbourne. However the villain isn't on-screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. I am assuming the likeness to Ozzy was intentional; in addition to the villain's look, he also ran a satanic looking hideout. So much more could have been made from the Ozzy Osbourne villain gimmick! If only the writer, director, or ANYONE had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film's arch villain!`Black Mask' was the first Jet Li film released on video in the USA after Lethal Weapon 4, and I'm glad I stayed away from it until now. It may well have ruined my whole perception of Jet Li as a martial artist and actor. If you want to see Jet Li at his worst, rent `Black Mask' and `The Evil Cult' and make it a double feature or horror, both intentional and unintentional. Otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of Jet Li, and have plots that are semi-well thought out and plausible. 3/9 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88f07720c6b54ac991452240a15ce9c0", "input": "Review: I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8086d87ab20f4f7e9f98ca053eb99687", "input": "Review: definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a10d8dc3de5e45e09c2f1c7ad0e8215c", "input": "Review: \"Xizao\", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing \"old days were much better\" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.An awesome, and touching film. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5221b1b51ae14a3ea8ef2d46493451d9", "input": "Review: This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking \"huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?\" or \"so how did that aspect of the character come about?\" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-db47dd2c855c4ad094ba0d641a501b58", "input": "Review: I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.Very improbable orphanage on Bala.Cushing and Lee at their height.Some nice scenery.Good for face spotting, and I quote, \"look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses\".Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50255aea255942018497d4b5a93daff1", "input": "Review: It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The \"romance\" with John was completely unbelievable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-03cf8580feea48fd8e31c940911f504c", "input": "Review: Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the \"no expectation\" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the \"romantic\" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d7427223ac1403281496c1c60083b1c", "input": "Review: A great addition to anyone's collection.12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.I very much highly recommend it.10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb0d63a1b4a34afcb1ddeb95fbc53bb1", "input": "Review: Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say \"two thumbs up\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d55e1fd6514840748d526de3186e9202", "input": "Review: I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a87b6f4e7a104ebeac3fdf3a5eb387b6", "input": "Review: This is a rip off of the old Frankenstein premise. An acclaimed scientist is killed in a freakish accident and his father, a noted brain surgeon saves the brain. It is then put into a robotic body of his own design. His brother, an electrical genius, gives the 'colossus' impetus to transfer thoughts into motion. The whole project goes bad, when the creation goes berserk.Special effects are undeveloped. The script is lacking. And it is humorous that this is not scary a bit. Well, very small kids will think this is good. If you are wide awake at three in the morning and this comes on....night, night.The lead characters are played by Otto Kruger, John Baragrey and Ross Martin. Ed Wolff played the 'Colossus'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02b79cff82a643a9980e7d2c47fd9582", "input": "Review: The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the \"I am not amused\" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-392c6c4d05ee41fe90d0bd17f4b90fbe", "input": "Review: This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-331628079aff4040bc0397db01424729", "input": "Review: Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c280457e410c4aaa8296d87d6ec945c8", "input": "Review: A disappointing film.The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?Technically, a disgusting shot film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9becbc3343e4932ae69a6e232f5d280", "input": "Review: do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4a3fa6087094df6991896568b506fc7", "input": "Review: I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.\"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury.\" That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the \"curse\" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour – by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:-person walks into house-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard -person goes to investigate-sound starts to get loud-person sees a ghost-loud scream and/or cat screech-cut to blackBefore the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end \"with a loud scream and a cut to black.\" We were never proved wrong.The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the \"scariest movie ever made.\" I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4af163edbfe5434ea9c5558f293a2ba8", "input": "Review: So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that \"MST3K\" mocks them (\"Why Study Industrial Arts?\" comes to mind). \"Hemo the Magnificent\" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).Since \"Hemo the Magnificent\" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in \"Gremlins\": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6b902a995234197b7f4686dc675782a", "input": "Review: Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-475a4e2875a745309417183acc647743", "input": "Review: How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab08c35defe3419ab2b3c7a98db18b1c", "input": "Review: People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and \"Little\" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father \"Big\" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a \"family comedy.\" What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a \"guilty pleasure\" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6916a02b5c14bd69cf5974f7a7f2615", "input": "Review: Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating \"collectors action figurine\"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were \"actual\" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f41d1d128fd74a06b35dccc7963fdc36", "input": "Review: If any style of film could be called my \"guilty pleasure\", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. \"Stardust\" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.--PolarisDiB Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c517978bd244d7a8780b3595964123b", "input": "Review: This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of \"Loose Change.\" This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71a5ee7549bd4e839c7a968260af5fc4", "input": "Review: If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real \"fought\" in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an \"ill-fated destiny\" is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between \"Stand By Me\" and \"Saving Private Ryan.\" What do men do when they are with a situation that's \"hard pressed\" in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing \"The best film of the year,\" and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3916d3b96874cd4b07e407995a955de", "input": "Review: The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1333ad650f7e49e0b298027cba6b3fea", "input": "Review: talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially \"The Squeeze\" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in \"Pacific Heights\" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed \"Multiplicity\". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of \"Batman\" .. and i kind of liked \"Night Shift\" and i love \"Johnny Dangerously\" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a80b1944cc104f2fbbc8bda190ef6ea4", "input": "Review: ****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet \"Hobgoblins\" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as \"The Creeping Terror,\" \"The Mighty Gorga\" and \"Manos\" are uniformly bad from start to finish. \"Hobgoblins\" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept \"Club Scum\" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch \"Hobgoblins\" and wonder no longer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02da3a1ed15845018d567962cac83405", "input": "Review: to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with \"Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf\". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f3c45a0d06d49e68b6bc2ddb4e8e17c", "input": "Review: \"The house of the spirits\" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in \"The house...\". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e99d4ecd1ff40af8c982db02b028d29", "input": "Review: I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4bf007aea75481c8fb5f6371f5bb224", "input": "Review: In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-570cea1e3f584fbdade058d5aa295dc3", "input": "Review: I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the \"villain\" that they decided they needed to create \"conflict.\" Uh huh.To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.What a waste of the DVD format. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-811c10dd161b4cc69449413658db67f7", "input": "Review: Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states \"starts off well then fizzles\" when it's really the reverse - \"starts off tepid then catches fire\". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic \"Kiss Me Deadly\") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying \"Pretty neat, huh?\" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, \"Don't go away\". She fires back \"Where would I go?\" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly \"Yeah, that's right\". The friction between them is a hoot.There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1454c40d778941d29f1c84e3e9e6853d", "input": "Review: Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as \"Him\" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-\"Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1037646413534adaa980c9d38c43af36", "input": "Review: It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long \"plot summary\" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-64106b937df44cb9a07bc8d76d21f1f9", "input": "Review: Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a \"spy thriller\". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eefc3a2b8a48470b8721102ba3cde59e", "input": "Review: The Japanese have always had incredible ambitions in their fantasy movies. They have always been ready to destroy cities by huge plastic monsters coming from outer space and elsewhere. The problem is they have never had the money to succeed in making convincing special effects. This film, released in France under the title Les envahisseurs de l'espace, is no exception. Its ambition is to show three creatures from the giant octopus to the giant lobster trying to have the upper hand on the humans. It's extremely awkward and laughable, but well quite enjoyable too. After all, we do like these creatures and these films after all, don't we? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9531947c7e7a4448b2a6b8f92683112b", "input": "Review: This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74729688e8344f78bfa83b0b9eade697", "input": "Review: Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) was born to sharecroppers in the deep south. He joins the navy, whereupon he tells his father he will be back. The father gives him an old radio, and Brashear leaves on the navy bus. The Most valuable thing his unemotional father taught him was, \"Never quit\". After a recommendation from a white commander Powers Boothe), who admires his drive and guts, he gets sent to Navy diving school at Bayonne, NJ. He endures harassment from his pals in uniform and from his trainer, Chief Navy Master Diver, Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro), and from the commanding officer, called pappy, (Hal Holbrook, who \"has almost as many loose screws as an old car\". They all want to make him drop out, and the prejudice is quite fierce.The dangers of diving prove a further setback when he loses a leg due to an accident on board ship. Despite this setback, he tells his wife that he will train and achieve his objective, and with the help of Billy Sunday, (now both joined in commiseration in their sufferings), they train and he is able to become the first black Navy diver with his artificial limb despite the skepticism of a highly mocking and doubtful captain at the Navy Department hearing in Washington, DC to determine if he meets the criteria. An inspirational movie, showing that determination can overcome all odds. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc713b9537cd45078d141452447a555d", "input": "Review: A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41e37c5fc7614babb09cb7db3a96f949", "input": "Review: Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place. Who greenlit this mess?I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0effcfdf367d463e956eb315c949f42c", "input": "Review: If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read \"The Elegant Universe\" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and \"The Universe in a Nutshell\" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.Recipe for #$*!:3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientistMix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.Serving suggestion: barf bags. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64f90f8dccff4135a439f69d6db22f05", "input": "Review: George and Kim are traveling with their young son Miles to a remote cabin in upstate New York when their car hits a deer and swerves into a ditch.But what seems to be a mere occurrence of misfortune marks the beginning of a terrifying journey,where myth becomes reality and a flesh-eating spirit,half animal and half man Wendigo,haunts a small town...\"Wendigo\" by Larry Fessenden is a thought-provoking horror film that often tenderfoot's into a somber family drama.The acting is great,the characters are well-developed and there are some bone-chilling moments.The subtle glimpses of Wendigo are handled effectively and it's never clear what is real and what is imagined,or even if the story is taking place entirely in Miles' head.Overall,\"Wendigo\" is my first contact with Larry Fessenden's work and surely won't be the last.Give this film a chance,if you don't mind watching something unconventional.8 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f17b7b617af4f908d6a2ea702b32e3d", "input": "Review: Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c54716f3d852477abd0d520f0d524b01", "input": "Review: After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f65f8406080f49c1804b84dc74a26b8d", "input": "Review: This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to \"Conquest\". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-499ba0c494f2404692275657571dc572", "input": "Review: Wonderland is the fascinating film chronicling the x-rated film star John C. Holmes involvement in the brutal Wonderland murders.The movie's promotion misleads one into thinking this a romanticized portrayal of the porn industry in the vein of Boogie Nights and that is not the case here.In fact,except for a few references made by newscasters that John Holmes is a porn star and a brief montage of real-life footage of John Holmes this film is strictly drama about a fallen celebrity's involvement with murder and how it happened.Despite being mislead the film is actually engaging.The acting from all the cast is excellent and I'd like to say that Val Kilmer is amazing in his ability to get down all the mannerisms of John Holmes.I was completely convinced that I was watching what John C. Holmes probably looked and acted like in real life.If you are a John C. Holmes fan or like stories about Hollywood then I think you will enjoy watching Wonderland. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6eb29faed4164c57a519270dd5424b3a", "input": "Review: Yes it may be goofy and may not seem as funny as many high budget comedies out there, but this movie is truly hilarious if you really watch it. Tim Meadows has always struck me as being funny off of the Saturday Night Live show. Whenever he would do this character on the show I would crack up laughing. So after I saw this was going to be playing on Comedy Central one night I decided to check it out. All in all I was farily impressed with this movie, because it wasn't meant to win any Oscars or become comedy of the year, but it did entertain the Saturday Night Live fans that love the Ladies Man character. This movie is also packed with some highly quotable lines that can be recited for years to come. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-caf3b100160a4d089cac3a0795244dc0", "input": "Review: The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7562f39e555a421489704862f50ac712", "input": "Review: An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for \"killing\" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b9db3ba79d5448f95cb15255b96334e", "input": "Review: Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, \"That's it?\" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a19f81779064a108ae598ac9d2d89dc", "input": "Review: \"Who Done It?\" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as \"Pardon My Terror.\") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice? Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! \"Who Done It?\" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec9fbab3aad3429ca1471a2dff7402d2", "input": "Review: Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the \"last\" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a16113864c4e45e297e63df35d66b070", "input": "Review: What we've got here is a Situation. A man is found to be in distress and people want to help him -- in contrasting ways. At the end they are forced to let it go. You can't fix people. And though in various aspects Reign Over Me is conventionally Hollywood, that message isn't.This story is not about Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife and three daughters in a 9/11 plane who's gone into a nearly psychotic state of PTSS since. It's about what meeting Charlie does to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a dentist in New York who was his roommate in dental school and, knowing about his tragedy, spots him on the street and reconnects. Charlie is riding around on a little toy motorized scooter -- a pretty fanciful contraption for negotiating Manhattan traffic -- with big headphones on over a mass of unruly hair. The hair is Sandler's chief prop to show he's deranged. And the use of music as an escape must hit home to every iPod-wielding subway rider.Charlie is a disaster, but paradoxically Alan, stuck with a controlling wife (Jada Pinkett Smith), soon begins to envy him. Charlie is living like an nutty adolescent boy with a huge trust fund (insurance money from the tragedy), and starts dragging Alan off to \"hang out,\" \"eat Chinese,\" buy records, or watch a Mel Brooks marathon at a rep house. Charlie lives in a nice big apartment protected by a mean landlady, redoing the kitchen over and over, collecting old vinyl of Springsteen, the Who, etc., and playing a video game called Shadow of the Collosus on a giant screen in a big empty living room.Charlie's in-laws are deeply concerned about him, but also somehow resentful, as we learn later. Alan has a new patient who is propositioning him. Charlie's desperation makes us see Alan's. Trying to help Charlie partly permits Alan to escape from his own stifling realities but partly just makes him more acutely aware of them.Cheadle and Sandler make an odd couple, but that doesn't matter, because it's convincing that they might both need each other. Charlie is desperate for the companionship of a friend who never knew his family, because to escape his loss, he is pretending he never had one. And so what if as a roommate Charlie slept naked and sleep walked and had terrible musical taste (no Motown)? Alan wants an escape from his tidy, emasculating life. He's under the thumb not just of his wife but of his dental partners, who lord it over him though it's he who set up the practice. They're white, by the way, and he's black.There's also the lascivious patient from hell, who seriously disrupts things at the dental offices, but starts looking different when Charlie comes by and notices she's a babe. His libido seems to be lurking ready to revive at any minute. He's also drawn to the breasts of Liv Tyler, a psychotherapist in the same building as the dentists who starts trying to treat Charlie when he admits he might need help.Sandler's mad scenes are a little too theatrical, as are a lot of the plot devices (in fact this movie feels like a play at more than one point), but he has several monologues where he expresses his sorrow in ways that are deeply touching.Charlie's not just delusional and sad, but dangerous and violent, and all these efforts to help him start to backfire. The movie is admirable in the way it conveys a sense that people can't be made right. This is an interesting movie -- sometimes a touching one -- and it's the first time 9/11 has been dealt with in terms of survivor suffering. But there is an element of comedy that seems tasteless at times, many of the people are too broadly drawn, and the overly grand Hollywood interiors have dreadful décor; only the Manhattan streets look real. There's a courtroom scene that is preposterous, and Donald Sutherland is a judge who's too good to be true. Alan's family problem is resolved too easily with a phone call. And yet this is worth watching for the acting -- the control and subtlety of Cheadle, and Sandler in a serious role almost as good as the one he had in P.T. Anderson's 2002 Punch-Drunk Love, though that's clearly a better movie, in fact a much better one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f34705f0484e4f778c7a2f2eed44a1e5", "input": "Review: It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca492157eb70421a9e41af600c0012e8", "input": "Review: The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c43c02fad704f8ca31718b8d82aa183", "input": "Review: I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f2438f097424da0bb32634e1d0973b1", "input": "Review: \"Fido\" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, \"Eisenhower era\" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss \"Fido\" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to \"Tank Girl\", but the two movies are vastly different. \"Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-476dc9b0fd7649678d8e5d8d21140e0c", "input": "Review: Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f04c29d690774d47aef000752f24c61c", "input": "Review: THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD is the third in a series of seven Amicus horror anthologies. If THE MONSTER CLUB is included as part of the series, this would make eight movies. Although, that movie is very different from the others.I look upon the Amicus anthologies with great memories as I used to love them when I was in my teens. My feelings for them today are just as strong.I spent many years trying to track down this movie. The synopses of the stories was so appealing that I went as far as paying a substantial amount for it when I eventually found a copy. As great as though the movie is, I did feel a sense of disappointment when I finally saw it. It wasn't quite as good as I was led to believe. Whilst better than its two predecessors, it's nowhere near as good as its four successors as I shall demonstrate.The linking story sees John Bennett as a police inspector tracking down a missing person who lives in a mysterious old house. His journey begins at the local police station where he learns the stories of previous occupants. The linking story later sees him visiting the estate agent who sold the house. Whilst this linking story seems enticing on paper, it is flat and lifeless in practice and easily the weakest of any Amicus anthology. I couldn't help but get the feeling that John Bennett is a poor man's version of Donald Pleasance or Ian Hendry. I would much rather have seen one of the two aforementioned actors in his role. We could have even had both here - one as the police inspector and another as the estate agent. They could, and I believe would, have brought this weak element of the movie to life much better.The movie contains four stories, each of which focuses on an inhabitant of the house.The first story sees Denholm Elliott as a writer of crime stories. He is absorbed into an exciting story about a strangler, even going as far as drawing a sketch to aid his writing. Soon after, he begins seeing visions of his own creation. Some excellent direction by Peter Duffell, particularly with the choice of camera angles helps to detract from the restrained script. Elliott's performance is superb as the tormented writer and he also helps to elevate the story. The story ends with a semi-twist but I couldn't help get the sense of a script which didn't allow it to live up to its potential.The second story sees Peter Cushing move into the house. He is a lonely man who is still pining for a beautiful young woman who once jilted him and who he keeps a picture of. Cushing's performance really brings this emotionally-moving story to life. He is helped by the director who chooses to include continual focus on Cushing's loneliness. This is taken further with a great hallucination scene that helps us to see inside Cushing's mind. Anyway, Cushing sees a figure at a nearby wax museum that looks just like his girl. Naturally his obsession grows but this seemingly romantic story has a disturbing twist at the end. Joss Ackland plays Cushing's rival but his performance is massively overshadowed by the late great Peter Cushing.The third story and easily the best sees Christopher Lee - my favourite horror actor of all time - move into the house with his daughter. Mr. Lee gives one his perfect ice cold performances here. He shows no love or attention for his daughter at all. He even brings in a school governess to educate her. The governess, played by Nyree Dawn Porter in another of her superb performances, tries to find out what is wrong. Without giving too much away, I can reveal that witchcraft plays a role. Christopher Lee's presence is truly electrifying in every scene he's in. Chloe Franks deserves special recognition for her massively underrated performance as the little girl who is easily the creepiest character in the whole movie. The movie is worth seeing even for the sake of seeing just this one story.The final story is played almost entirely for laughs but it certainly does entertain and that's what matters. Jon Pertwee plays a horror movie actor who moves into the house. He is very dissatisfied at the approach his producers take to movies, seeing everything as cheap and fake, particularly the costumes. So he decides to buy an authentic cloak for his latest vampire role. Geoffrey Bayldon has an excellent cameo as a dealer who sells Pertwee an ancient cloak. When Pertwee puts the cloak on, he starts developing fangs and basically transforming into a vampire. Pertwee's performance has to be seen to be believed. It truly is hilarious. Ingrid Pitt is also in this story but her talent is wasted in a role that should have been much larger.The linking story finishes with a loose connection to the final story. This is particularly fitting since the inspector was looking for Pertwee and naturally decides to visit the house. The rest you'll be able to work out for yourself. As weak as the linking story is, it does have a decent if somewhat unintentionally comical ending.I'm convinced that the blame for the shortcomings in what should have been a truly magnificent movie doesn't lie with Peter Duffell, the director, who really does his best with what he's got. I think the script was just too restrained and lacking the ambition that can be found in the four later movies.Overall, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, despite its flaws is a must-see for fans of the Amicus anthologies, fans of other Amicus movies or fans of portmanteau horror movies. If my summary provides the movie with enough appeal in your eyes, check it out. You'll enjoy it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b20df91db4745918c0e207b4994bde7", "input": "Review: The name Uwe Boll is automatically linked to bad horror/cult cinema and every new movie he releases – which is about two, three per year – immediately always receives negative ratings and harsh criticism. You're actually almost tempted to think this is just a contemporary hype. You know, like it's popular to hate Uwe Boll whether you liked his movies or not. Let me just assure you that this is NOT the case. Uwe Boll is a terrible writer/director and quite frankly a menace to the entire film-making industry. \"Seed\" is another most unfortunate of proof that. In here, Boll tries so desperately hard to come across as controversial and shocking that he overlooks numerous other elements that any movie essentially needs to exist, like a plot, a narrative structure, character development, tension building… \"Seed\" is a hideous movie, full of gratuitous filth and incompetent padding footage. I once read that \"Seed\" was Uwe Boll's interpretation of the nowadays popular horror trend of Torture Porn flicks, but that's not even close. The film inarguably does borrow some influences from \"Saw\" and \"Hostel\", but basically it's just another umpteenth dull slasher with an indestructible killer and video game violence. The first 45 minutes of \"Seed\" are beyond boring and actually just confirm all the obvious things you already knew were going to happen. For you see, Boll was stupid enough to begin his film with a (hyper- fast) scrolling text explaining there's a federal US law claiming that death row prisoners have to be set free if three attempts to electrocute them fail. So you know this will happen later on, but still the first three quarters are wasted on catching a serial killer and bringing him to the electric chair. Seed is a mute serial killer who supposedly slaughtered 666 victims (exaggerate much?) who wears a bag over his head. He watches real-life animal cruelty footage (and thus WE watch real-life animal cruelty footage; thanks for that Mr. Boll) and videotapes people as the slowly decompose in their cellar (including a crying baby which is really sick and twisted). When he's finally captured, during the most amateurish and implausible police manhunt ever filmed, and put on death row, the film even becomes more retarded. After being buried alive because the electric chair couldn't fry him, Max Seed crawls back to the surface and goes on a brand new killing spree; this time mainly focusing on the people who arrested and executed him. The senseless plot twists and complete lack of story depth of this movie go way past being just bad; they're downright infuriating and insulting the intelligence level of the average horror movie fanatic. Multiple twists and sub plot in \"Seed\" are simply impossible to accept by the reasonable functioning human mind because they're just too dumb! Nobody believes that cops and prison staff members will just bury a mass murderer alive without shooting a few bullets through his head first. Nobody will accept that a fugitive convict cannot be found for another six months even though he went straight back to the exact same hideout place where they first caught him! \"Seed\" is full of retarded little things like these and the movie gets dumber with each minute that passes. Personally, I refuse to accept that the cast & crew members didn't notice this as well. It really makes you think that Uwe Boll simply neglects all advice and criticism, and just stubbornly shoots his movies the way he wants to. I imagine his yelling stuff like \"shut up and do as you are told\" to his actors whenever they remark that the scene they're shooting doesn't make a lick of sense. Just for the fun of upsetting people, there's a gigantically overlong sequence where Max Seed smashes an elderly lady to death with a hammer whilst she's tied up to a chair in the middle of her own living room. Instead of shocking, as Boll intended it to be, this sequence masterfully epitomizes how pathetic and wannabe controversial the whole film in fact is. \"Seed\" is horrendous, it's disgusting, it's pitiable, it's … Boll. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-19425110fb9649eeaa87a0fc9d242458", "input": "Review: I'm here again in your local shopping mall (of course, 'cause that's where the high school kids hang out!!!!!) to demonstrate how awful \"BENDY POO: PROM COURIER\" really is!!!!! To prove how bad this joke of a DCOM this is......we're going to take these four sumo wrestlers, and stuff them into this photo booth. How...cozy!!!!! Hai! Huuuuuuuarrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh!!!!! How awful is it????? It's so bad, Disney Channel flushes away its money, yet again, with those exciting yet determining 10-second promos, keeping the viewers wondering, \"WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE ON?????\" And then, suddenly, when it DOES come on, for one, this not only got a higher TV rating than usual, but this was only seen once!!!!! Oh, no!!!!! One time everyone!!!!! Plus, this movie is about high school and stuff, and believe me, I will NOT go any further with what else is in there.....Say ch...smile!!!!! (SNAP!) Avoid this one at all costs. 0/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f2a989cce6940a08b5bbe70123e4cba", "input": "Review: This is really a great unknown movie.Perfect dialogue without the typical clichés.This movie relied on the actor's talent and it was pulled off.It even had a little bit a comedy in it,but it wasn't overdone.Once in the Life is what a crime drama is supposed to be,not the typical special affects garbage with sex thrown in.I especially loved the interracial aspects of it all.Now onto the actors themselves. Laurence Fishburne was superb at playing a career petty criminal.It's a shame that he's only allowed to show his talent in his own movie. Titus Welliver was fabulous as Fishburne's junky half-brother. Eamonn Walker added flavor to the already perfectly spiced film. Paul Calderon was perfect as a grease monkey/drug lord.I loved his acting since \"King of New York\". But the best acting in this film came from Gregory Hines and Michael Paul Chan,who were paired perfectly as two of Calderon's henchmen.Once in the Life is for sure a keeper. ****1/2* out of *****. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d70c16ba6bc74d5dad053b0f8ffd5d1f", "input": "Review: I got to say that Uma Thurman is the sexiest woman on the planet. this movie was uber cute and I mean uber cute. It had all the \"sex\" content that most Ivan Reitman comedies have but with something a lil extra, CHEMISTRY. Uma and Luke both have this awkrawrd but believable chemistry that seem to transcend in each scene . Both seem to create this odd, twisted and interesting relationship with powerful \"sexual\" tension that you laugh until you can't feel your face anymore. Anna Farris and the rest of the supporting cast seem to play off each other's roles perfectly and even Wanda Sykes' rather small role will keep you laughing. Though these kind of comedies aren't for everybody, but I have to say I went with a person that doesn't usually enjoy these films and he was laughing like crazy. This movie is certainly not for everyone. especially younger children since some moments are little too...well lets say ADULT for younger viewers. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, tough the ending I found was a little weak compared to the rest of the film. (3 1/2* out of 5*) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-932753fef03c48ac9ce68d33c9bbfb1f", "input": "Review: I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to \"The Blair Witch Project\". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled \"Army of 2\".The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says \"Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag\".I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.A+. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-249a4c99ebc84cc0a2a4f8fd273aa554", "input": "Review: \"The Invisible Mouse\" is a delightful and different Tom & Jerry's cartoon. It features the usual cat/mouse chases and battles, but in a different way this time. Jerry accidentally falls in a bottle of invisible ink and is obviously very glad about this because he realizes that he can prepare lots of \"surprises\" for Tom, scare him, torment him and confuse him.As much as it is weird, it's also very cool and funny to see what we can't see: Jerry invisible. It's amusing to see things lifting up in the air without seeing who's doing it (we know who, right?) - it's like those things had a life of their own or even almost like a matter of ghosts. It's equally amusing to see Jerry eating some candies and fruits while he's invisible. I really like that instrumental music which plays when he's not visible.Some of the best jokes on this short are when Tom sees Jerry's shadow and slams him and even when Tom tries to slam him with a frying pan and Jerry writes \"Missed me\". I also like when Jerry drinks Tom's chocolate milk, becoming visible again and with a happy look on his face.Overall, this short has the basic ingredients needed for a classic cartoon: humor, entertainment, fun and some nice artwork too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e628ff7d3a2d4ec5a3c9d2420f4777f9", "input": "Review: For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell \"tearjerker\" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-27b83e68bb9547f68f248eb5b843149b", "input": "Review: I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fa351b739604ca39ca2e99b50025da8", "input": "Review: \"CIA Codename:Alexa\" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film \"La Femme Nikita\"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' \"acting\" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie \"conventions\" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for \"Hard to Kill\" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip \"CIA Codename:Alexa\" and check out \"La Femme Nikita\" instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7f8e07569124494ac47913b835d5f86", "input": "Review: i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22e0d3eff70a4545867a5c1c3cc861a3", "input": "Review: this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74ef994ef6b144568f6b50713cd380a3", "input": "Review: You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' \"A Christmas Carol\" with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, \"I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?\", we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, \"it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child\" he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3881320763e45d8a8bcc0fa0b843a94", "input": "Review: Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless. In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate. Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie. There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on. Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and \"somewhat\" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it. (On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3418b01bdde445568e0cb650306a8ba1", "input": "Review: So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod \"defacing\" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's \"freedom of the press\" line sounded silly compared to \"..Care to step outside\" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the \"turn back the world to go back in time\" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b013e2f19f74900898f1b45a2dba8a9", "input": "Review: After reading the first 5 reviews on IMDb I was very enthusiastic about this movie. But it's really an awful movie, the total time you see the alien is about 5 minutes (the rest of the movie is cheap suspense), the acting is over the top en the story, oh boy, which story?The story doesn't seem to go in a direction, first they capture the alien (after 7 years! they finally succeed), then they don't know what to do with it (after 7 years?) and even want to release it (why the hell did they capture it?). Then the girlfriend, who's acting is the most over the top, wants to walk away from this madness, then suddenly she doesn't, then again, she does and then she doesn't. Then they come to the conclusion that killing the alien will kill the whole human race (and remember, in all those years no other human have seen these permanently settled aliens) and what do they do? They torture it and blow a bunch of aliens to peaces.This is my first review on IMDb, I'm a very lazy person who doesn't write very soon, so listen to my warning: this move is not worth your time, don't watch this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4347629dc5f4fc4915ffef88518f83f", "input": "Review: North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the \"Arabic\" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56a66473ec6544bfb10c08c8e0db7779", "input": "Review: This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1fd7ae6d76b4116a835a634e3a40e0f", "input": "Review: If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fb672af52e84da39bea0e0d692ee014", "input": "Review: Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0b8c8e5a1f44524834b15cb112005ce", "input": "Review: During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9954cda19d3f4d9c98416220950e0ee3", "input": "Review: This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee3f56421e55455e95bbe0719808d3f8", "input": "Review: Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-947c7c7849944d619d4c60b16cbbb5e2", "input": "Review: Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6d270a4e20a4f298ec5f5ecc4cdb93a", "input": "Review: Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-844adb00b6e842e4bd359a4cd0883463", "input": "Review: I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.I was excited for the sequel to \"Wargames\" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and \"Wargames: The Dead Code\" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. \"The Dead Code\" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he \"wins\" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like \"He has expert knowledge of bio-terror\" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a78e40a092fa4397bd8a3980c8e8053c", "input": "Review: I approach films about talking animals with care. For every wonderful one like Babe, you get an equally poor one like the dreadful remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. Or in the case of Cats & Dogs, you have a great idea for a film not living up to its potential. When I heard about Paulie, the premise of a wisecracking parrot didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But I found the film a pleasant surprise. And it manages to sneak its way into your heart without you realising.A Russian janitor, Misha Vilyenkov (Tony Shaloub) gets a job in a research laboratory. One day, he hears singing coming from the basement. And when he investigates, he finds a parrot in its cage singing its little heart out. Misha becomes fascinated with the bird, especially when it turns out the parrot can not only sing, it can talk. And not a few phrases either. Its a parrot you can actually make conversation with.The parrot is called Paulie (voiced by Jay Mohr), and recognises a fellow castaway in Misha. Wondering how this world to the wise bird ended up in a dusty basement, Misha convinces Paulie to tell him his life story. Which all began when he was a baby, and in the care of Marie, a five year old girl with a stutter. The two of them became birds of a feather (OK, bad pun!).When Marie's parents became concerned about her close friendship with a bird, they considered sending him away. And they finally did after Marie nearly injured herself in a fall after teaching Paulie to fly. Desperate to be reunited with her, Paulie begins a long journey across America, which includes a diverse number of new owners, flying great distances, and even ending up behind bars. Of a cage that is!Paulie was one of a number of talking animal films released by DreamWorks in the late 90s. And although it wasn't afforded the same recognition or box-office success of Babe, Paulie succeeds on quite a few levels, and is an occasional work of striking intelligence.Jay Mohr's stand-up style of acting is well suited to the part of Paulie. He never plays the part as too smug, even if he is a bit of a smart Aleck. Paulie's worldly, but he is also naive in his way.Because he's lived a rather sheltered life with Marie, when he's taken away, he has to fend for himself for the first time. And when he falls into the hands of different owners, they make promises to Paulie to reunite him with Marie, which he believes. Only for those promises to be broken time and again.Paulie is admittedly a little episodic. It follows the eclectic people Paulie ends up with, and how he slowly gets brought closer and closer to Marie. He first winds up in a pawn shop, where he is adopted by Ivy (Gena Rowlands), a kindly woman who teaches him the meaning of manners. She sympathises with Paulie's situation, and drives an RV across America to find Marie.Paulie is an occasionally very touching film. His scenes with Ivy are some of the best. Wonderful moments of Paulie perched on her shoulder singing Tom Jones numbers. The way she instills in him the need for hope is great, and some of the dialogue is quite well written and even thought-provoking: \"There are things in life you put off, because you think you're gonna do them later. But the real thing Ivy taught me is you gotta live like there may not be a later.\"The scene where Ivy passes away en route leaving Paulie all alone is a very heart-rending moment. And the sequence where he plucks up the courage to fly for the first time across the Grand Canyon, soaring majestically is such a beautifully composed scene it stays with you for hours after the film's over.Despite the occasional sad moment, there are plenty of laughs to be had. Paulie falls in with a group of performing parrots at a Spanish outdoor restaurant. The animatronic effects here are really excellent as four birds do a perfectly choreographed dance number. And Paulie even gets to have a romance. Which is dashed when he falls in with a petty thief (played by Mohr as well). That may be the only complaint I have. As soon as you get comfortable with one situation, the film then moves Paulie on to another.The scene where Paulie is taught to steal money from ATM machines is funny, but a little disturbing too. I'm amazed DreamWorks were granted the chance to include such a scene in a kids film. And Paulie's diamond robbery is very Mission Impossible. He's caught in the act, and shipped off to the lab for animal testing, where he's remained ever since.The story finally comes full circle at the lab, where Misha vows to help Paulie. Of course they do find Marie. But the final revelation is a scene of such shocking intensity, I was left numb for several minutes. Paulie may never get the longevity Babe has, but I believe its an equally brilliant film. The same laughs. The same flawless effects. And the same surprising intelligence.A minor gem. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87250e9665884a79ab0498cfd390ddf9", "input": "Review: What would happened when a depressed cop works with a shrink on probation? May be a lot of fun... This movie set a benchmark in the action/comedy genre of the Argentinean cinema. Dearable characters, probable story and a pace that between laughs has some thrill. I recommended it for a pleasant time of entertaining. Peretti and Luque join their efforts to fight against a cold and daringly foe in a time when it's difficult to trust someone. This movie will surprise you, the other side of the coin of \"Analyze me\", but not alike, with nothing to envy. And if you like to know Bs.AS there where few scenes of downtown and the city center. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cc9cfee13554968b28397addc89e2ec", "input": "Review: I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-84a515d8f9df4dc9ad0f6772482f6137", "input": "Review: One of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill.Woeful down market attempt to cash in on the Death Wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging Bronson. Acting is terrible, sets are cheap, the baddies are, well, bad. Identification with any of the characters is unlikely.Only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity, a smattering of which is full frontal. Other than that, you can leave it... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e53196b854a47929f361b197e6d2654", "input": "Review: Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.Score: 2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0a0823bff06454586bda6120e23680b", "input": "Review: While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is \"racy\". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a5e06626af8445e860e2983c27bc42c", "input": "Review: From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2b2956ed0c147b1862b29c9dbc8c168", "input": "Review: I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a \"personal note\" from the Director, asking for the audience's \"understanding\" for the \"many challenges\" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this \"film\" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged \"movie\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d29de56e779347f49f541486b24a6f21", "input": "Review: A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a01d252716742538d77cb342905129f", "input": "Review: Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice (\"we are all special friends\"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-360a31a4116042c7b07aa40315a42296", "input": "Review: This movie grabbed me with the incredible opening sequence which tricked me into a complete reversal of perspective, so I was hooked by the time the title came on. The theme of this movie is that everyone is acting, trying to re-invent themselves, but not in a tricky way like Identity or the Usual Suspects, but in the way we all try to make whatever banal life we find ourselves in a little more interesting. The scenes in the chicken warehouses are spectacular. At one point Jorgen (who owns the chicken farm) attends a seminar in laughing, where he's the worst student. His discomfort at this lets you see the depth of his yearning to change himself. The movie made me wonder about the hidden mysteries that lie behind the surface of the most commonplace people I see every day. There's not a lot of plot here. Guessing the old man's secret is pretty easy, but the fascination lies in trying to guess what all the other characters will do when they figure it out. This movie appealed to me in the same way that Sideways did, although the characters couldn't be more dissimilar. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2a1b8fab636449986fe770e668df5ad", "input": "Review: Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that \"Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was.\"Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b58cb024b2a44f1b5b62d0cec5ff614", "input": "Review: Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcb52408898d42629e3efa262941e8c7", "input": "Review: One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e1c4b068b2a4363bbf366309d934980", "input": "Review: this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-390f5193d06c408ca774282c70bb873b", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that I've seen so many times that I can quote most of it. Some of the lines in this movie are just unbeatable. I particularly enjoy watching him stumble and fall while drunk, go out to the fancy restaurant drunk and the part with the moose.I don't know how many times I have seen this sequence but it's funny every time. From the moment Arthur gets to Susan's Dad's place to the bit with the moose, you pretty much laugh the whole time. I remember watching the out-takes regarding the bit with the moose. It went down just like I'd imagined it'd be like. They were all laughing so hard it was difficult for them to film it.The late Sir John Gielgud was a wonderful addition to this. His demeanor, his one-liners and the way he handled Arthur were all equally hilarious. It's always a funny moment when he whacks him over the head with his hat or tells him he's a spoiled little ____. I laugh every time I listen to the \"I'm going to have a bath\" and the lines that follow. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-281f3844cc4f45458b86081981064f3c", "input": "Review: Thankfully saw this on a plane to Singapore recently (thought I'd missed it at the Cinemalaya filmfest). Paris, je t'aime is a collection of 20 short films (about 5 mins each) by 20 directors showing love in various pockets of contemporary Paris.One of my fave segments is 'Parc Monceau' by Alfonso Cuarn (Great Expectations, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), which was done in one continuous shot and features Nick Nolte.The Coen brothers' 'Tuileries' starring Steve Buscemi as a tourist in the metro was hilarious ! Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe in 'Place des Victoires' was haunting.For Maggie Gyllenhaal as an American actress/druggie in 'Quartier des Enfants Rouges' to have portrayed anticipation and heartbreak in such a short period of time was just brilliant.Elijah Wood as a vampire victim in 'Quartier de la Madeleine' was pretty surreal, while Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell played a cute couple in Wes Craven's 'Pre-Lachaise'.Natalie Portman was beautiful as usual as the actress girlfriend of a visually impaired French boy in 'Faubourg Saint-Denis'. But despite the many portrayals of young love, a more mature execution by Gena Rowlands in 'Quartier Latin' was equally aww-inducing.This movie is perfect for those with ADHD because each sequence is driven and carefully thought of.There are also a number of memorable quotes. One in particular is this one from a cheating husband who eventually leaves his mistress to stay with his dying wife in her last days: \"In pretending to be a man in love, he became a man in love.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-622b95098b2c40c6bc370eba40857109", "input": "Review: Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.enjoy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-24c826c559ba48f4936fc6235ebc41d4", "input": "Review: Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprisedwith this movie. James \"I did some things to Farrah Fawcett\" Orr co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guynamed Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have beenincredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball gamewhen he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartenderMike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new lifeisn't exactly as he hoped it would be.I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have givenit mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting andpulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enoughfunny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it reallygood. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. JonLovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine intheir roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It'sjust a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, Ihighly recommend you check Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a1c93f5986542c4a20d18bb44834cd5", "input": "Review: It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d57f6f633e3b41ab83a638bb53947f6a", "input": "Review: When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only \"good \"part.Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79d529eb82484587a75fd9e566898ae0", "input": "Review: This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film \"Beowulf and Grendel\". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. \"Grendel\" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e030a171dd9841428d6ba913fd88fae3", "input": "Review: I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7c682f9cbcf4feb9a165392ff1cfc5d", "input": "Review: John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashionthat cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41bdb81414f54670b2bf5857de16dfcd", "input": "Review: Eddie Murphy Delirious is undoubtedly the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. When I saw it for the first time about 2 years ago I was in stitches for weeks after it. To date I have seen it a further 17 times and i still laugh my ass off each time. For those who dont know Eddie Murphy was a brilliant stand up comedian before he was a Hollywood superstar. There is not one dull spot in this piece of genius unlike Eddie Murphy Raw which was released in 1987 which goes flat during the middle. If you are not the sort of person who can't stand swearing then I wouldn't advise you to see it as you will probably hear swearing of some form every 5-10 seconds. I gave this a 10 out of 10 because it displays the greatest comic genius of them all at his best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34fa75d9448b46b49748b3c24fc14ffa", "input": "Review: Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of \"super soul,\" the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-acb7334de4b748f9ab0a72ee14e4ab5f", "input": "Review: Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is fun—it is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. \"Arzenta\" is an unpretentious ,yet very likable film—much better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth. I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.The score is very fine, with a good introductory song—making felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).\"Arzenta\" is interestingly filmed—an ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-26ceeed42b174128b87a2f85188a2cee", "input": "Review: Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b88159b5afa94fe091badd3e46ae061e", "input": "Review: Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.And now... this.A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for \"the Alps\" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be \"an ancient cave\". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec59a28b4e7a418c864451ddc18d9291", "input": "Review: This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b96654bf7cb4b108ca49011f9f9072f", "input": "Review: You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.Best not to look this one up. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb9f9842cc7745c1b6bdc4124af236cc", "input": "Review: This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-98c9e3a60d9146d5ac8af74f8c024dc8", "input": "Review: Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb1bf448a1bb42819388f60c364977af", "input": "Review: The main question I pose concerning this film is, how do you film a cole porter musical and only use 3 of his 15 songs! merman and lahr played the lead roles on broadway, here they are replaced by the weaker red skelton and lucille ball. plot changes abound and the fun is lost.SKIP IT. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4648959df4243f49fbe5c4dc1b87db0", "input": "Review: This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe274796e25f4c2db6b609f3e3bf2750", "input": "Review: Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?It gets a \"7\" based on Karen Black. You'll see why. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-143532395e484b619432d47c6780ee5f", "input": "Review: I saw this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought \"What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e75b8a070cf64ee5a5b446138de2870f", "input": "Review: Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like \"Tarzan\" and \"The Emperor's New Groove\" have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. \"Atlantis\" is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of \"The Little Mermaid\" et al.So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's \"Titanic\". Both films feature a boat in some manner.And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, \"The Little Mermaid\" (A good thing).You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths – a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale – need I go on?I don't know why this got to anyone – I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent \"Titan A.E.\" down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, \"Nadia\", for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film – after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21930d62f7e046a2a72b8d01b4c2908d", "input": "Review: This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled \"Starstruck\". I thought, \"What the hey\", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is \"Starfucker\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a40b4800644481383a8719127db7f45", "input": "Review: There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0ecae5b4f6044bc9ed41cbdf96a1542", "input": "Review: \"Pandemonium\" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. \"Airplane\", \"The Naked Gun\" trilogy, \"Blazing Saddles\", \"High Anxiety\", and \"Spaceballs\" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. \"Pandemonium\" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, \"Scream\" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?*1/2 (out of four) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42cd60d2826140beb81413aef93abc46", "input": "Review: I viewed the movie together with a homophobic friend, my wife and her female friend. So I had views from all kinds of directions. Mainly, the film made me laugh, the sexual tension was not really there and the only noticeable actors were Tudor Chirila and Maria Popistasu. Yes, I do think she played her role well, even if the script was not appropriate. There were good Romanian actors around, they just didn't have complex roles. I applaud Puya's entering the movie business. I don't know why, but I think he's a good guy, I just hope he'll be a good actor.The wife loved the movie, though, and I think there might have been chords being played and to which I had no ear for. If the film tried to present uncommon sexual behaviors and their consequences in todays Romania, then it failed miserably. There were no consequences. Just imagine that the girls are actually a boy and a girl, and the same story becomes just a boring, uninteresting plot.I have no idea why it got all those BAFTA awards. In my book, it should have gotten the \"Better luck next time\" award. (bafta=good luck in Romanian). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8b6e5b92a5b452ab73eddd7baee5c8c", "input": "Review: what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08e38c9e721648ce9ad14f2bc5f5364f", "input": "Review: \"Voodoo Academy\" features an \"Academy\" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this \"Academy\" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the \"Academy,\" and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8f39bf5e449448ebe1c26255ba2e473", "input": "Review: The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8de37fb820c049edb2cbbdc58a771124", "input": "Review: The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of \"A Bug's Life\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-469f98e690fb406a9dbafb0c0121b8c8", "input": "Review: THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-39edce7fbc9a48d5a0ec2f06be2edd01", "input": "Review: A sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots \"terrorizing\" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative \"the Phantom\" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ceb844b30b084d429583087012fa7db7", "input": "Review: I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best. As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: \"Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted.\" Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved. The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc6d73e651d54435aa928518e56bad4a", "input": "Review: in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6abbb18c0654d0aa24ae2307dc0a20e", "input": "Review: Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the \"hot\" popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b43850d2c9d541429dcb24224fe4a206", "input": "Review: POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fb2e357ddb94afe9d479c88f49c3b94", "input": "Review: this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d3cf976b3fa4c6ca4d78d7ba8596b19", "input": "Review: As a kid I remember being nine or ten and loving this movie. It was the all round Bollywood action/comedy movie. It is a imitation of Bad Boys obviously! The whole swapping identities but the arrival of two other twins throws everything out of the window and then the arrival of colourful villains who dance and sing! The action scenes in the film aren't revolutionary but still amazing scenes. The film is genuinely very funny and was the great comeback Amitabh Bachan needed. Govinda is a gem like always and this is probably his best work to date, he shines as the side kick nd delivers the best comedy scenes available in Indian cinema.The songs....The songs are both funny and catchy..............proving laughs when you least expect it...Amitabh Bachan surprisingly is very funny and will make you laugh as 'Bade Miah'....his accent...body language..... Brilliant...'Assi chutki naab re daal' is the best song..............Hilarious. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37329642b6574c5683608d85d01cff42", "input": "Review: I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that \"Préte-moi ta main\" has plenty of flaws.My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment \"of romance\" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f52ea03f3a2479687e566d5e7e6414e", "input": "Review: Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.-Matthew McGuire Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-11cb37ad25d64d4592b6e774c790e2c7", "input": "Review: Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-abbf3fc74ae148f7917b3b936b92321a", "input": "Review: I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ca3d7a3bbdf4704adce6b8994ad24e9", "input": "Review: There are people claiming this is another \"bad language\" ultra violence Mexican movie. They are right, but more than that this film is a call to create awareness of what we have become. The awful truth hurts, or bores when you already have accepted the paradigm of living the third world as the only possible goal. One of the most important things of \"Cero y van cuatro\" is the open invitation to profound reflexion over our current identity. Is that what we all are? Is that all that we want to be? I am abroad and I realized how spoiled is the Mexican society when the Tlahuac Incident came to light. I still cannot understand viewers witnessing a mass broadcasted murder. I nearly puked when I saw some of the images. It was not Irak or Rwanda, just a tiny village near Mexico City when rampage was carried out with the indulgence of media and government. The recreation of a similar situation in this film shocked me deeply. The other stories were good portraying other situations of corruption, dishonesty, betrayal and violence, but I consider \"Tamales de Chivo\" the best one.The movie is deeper than some \"cabrón\" and \"pendejo\" screams. Those are meaningless compared with the actions of the people. With a few exceptions they are all perfect examples of human rubbish. Just like in real life honesty is becoming more the exception than the rule in our country. Moreover, honesty is only rewarded miraculously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aad6ebb7fe464f679cdf1910e21bb082", "input": "Review: I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29ef8e8dcfbf40d983286855effc890a", "input": "Review: Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71b8af17a7b24df1ad8f43570e125486", "input": "Review: I really liked Tom Barman's AWTWB. You just have to let it come over you and enjoy it while it lasts, and don't expect anything. It's like sitting on a café-terrace with a beer, in the summer sun, and watching the people go by. It definitely won't keep you pondering afterwards, that's true, but that's not a prerequisite for a good film. It's just the experience during the movie that's great.I felt there were a few strands that could have been worked out a little more, but being a Lynch fan I don't care that much anymore :)And I *loved* the style, or flair of this movie. It's slick, but fresh, and the soundtrack is a beauty. Any music-lover will get his kicks out of AWTWB, I can assure you.I'll give it 8 out 10.(music-wise 10 out of 10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb81f1c160704ab3ba12ecf86f989adb", "input": "Review: I already loved \"How the Grinch Stole Christmas\" when it was released and I'm still loving it now, 5 years later. Still lots of people seem to disagree with my opinion and this movie never really had received much love at the time it came out.Sure, the movie is over-the-top and campy but that at the very same is also the reason why this movie is so charming and fun to watch. All of the sets, costumes and characters are done perfectly over-the-top in a fun way, without ever becoming truly ridicules. It's a visually spectacular movie to watch. It's a campy movie making at its very best! Director Ron Howard really surprises with this fun little Christmas movie.Main reason why the movie works and why it's so much fun to watch is Jim Carrey as the Grinch. He truly carries the movie with his good and fun role. He is of course helped by the convincing make-up, which also received an Academy Award. Of course if you're a Jim Carrey hater you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. This movie is really his movie and he makes it all work and so much fun to watch. Other fun and memorable roles are being played by Jeffrey Tambor, Clint Howard and Josh Ryan Evans as the young Grinch.The movie has a good morale but it is all a bit sappy to me. Perhaps it's because I'm Dutch and we don't really celebrate Christmas that enthusiastic and big here, as in the United States or England. For me the movie was simply fun and entertaining and the morale just left me quite cold to be honest.The musical score by James Horner is good and fun, even though it's your average every day Horner stuff, it still all works perfectly for the movie and helps to make some of the scene's work.Perfect Christmas entertainment.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33c170a8525e403b86640486c70c0679", "input": "Review: For starters, \"Hobgoblins\" tries to ape the more successful \"Gremlins\". That's bad enough but they don't even try to make anything that closely resembles a movie here. Instead, it's more like a bargain basement, everything-must-go clearance of embarrassing scenes, inappropriate sound FX, acting as bland as unflavored tapioca and a script that takes everything humans hold sacred in their motion pictures and throws 'em down the old tube-aroo.The plot? Grrrr.... Meddling kids track down gremlin-like creatures from movie lot before they kill people by projecting their fantasies. Sound cool, does it? Well, see that wall on the other side of your room? Run right at it, top speed, face first. See, THAT is cooler than this movie.You dare to doubt? Quick, name something else one of the leads has been in other than this. What other scripts have the writers done since \"Hobgoblins\"? Name another Rick Sloane directoral effort. How many \"Hobgoblins\" action figures do you have? See? THANK you.I cannot believe I took so long to write about such a horrible film. I'd rather write about more important things; like the separation of church and state, economic restructuring in Europe, that kind of thing. But no, \"Hobgoblins\" it is and it is bad - bad like your grandparents' wallpaper, bad as pink flamingos on your lawn, bad like underwear that says \"Home of the Whopper\"...and I think we'll stop there.Well, Mike and the robots fight valiantly but try as they might, they can do only so much with \"Hobgoblins\" before they realize that, yes, the director DOES need kicked in the shin.Real, real hard.One star for \"Hobgoblins\", seven stars for the MST3K version. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2b825ffee0e493fa647f641120156da", "input": "Review: A woman left alone after the death of her husband finds herself attracted to her son's friend and handy man. In a slightly twisted story, the woman begins sleeping with the handy man in an effort to revive herself. The twisted part? The handy man is also her daughter's on and off love interest.As if this wasn't strange enough, the mother manages to fall for this man and when her daughter finds out, she blames not only her dysfunctional relationship but also her messed up life on her poor mother.Though you may think badly of this woman, the truth is movie manages to portray her in a positive light. Beautifully played by Anne Reid, this character has dimension and portrays great emotion.A truly brilliant performance and an enjoyable film.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bd9f7239c7a4ddf898c1ed1f5d20d2a", "input": "Review: There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-96f2570d30634f43b496c971478ed515", "input": "Review: I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.I was a great fan of the film \"Stargate\" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a90b4299ae654a8fb21c1a5ae5faef6f", "input": "Review: Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f609410443cc4dd1bc1e5ac37153e062", "input": "Review: How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people \"screamed\" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcb996e7dbf84271b9d2535fe95d3261", "input": "Review: I've seen Mystery Men cop a bit of stick in the press and with the general public ( take the imdb vote for instance), but my overall feeling is that Mystery Men is more fun than most films, definitely wittier than most so-called comedy films and very nearly 'clever'.The cast is superb; Greg Kinnear is excellent, as are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Waits. Kinnear's limo scene with Ricky Jay is perfect 'spoiled movie star' and he imbues his character with the right balance of comic book quality and realism to make him work.I will admit the pacing is a little off in places, and visuals are certainly very flash bang, possibly to the detriment of further characterisation, but at the end of the day, this is high concept film making - it's about the little moments \"What's Up Tiger Lily?\" - and there are so many great ones in this film to make it worth repeated viewing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-31033ac089974265b0b941c74e1c0968", "input": "Review: I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87e4e8467c2e4a2e9246ee40950370ad", "input": "Review: I love the book, \"Jane Eyre\" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76969fb74a304b1da1ba9ec8ff439da3", "input": "Review: Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved \"innocent\" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbcedcf276de42e6bda3fe5664784b79", "input": "Review: I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-edc7a19593584dbfb00a78215525ad4e", "input": "Review: Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd \"boys talking crap\", but it comes across as forced...I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..It always rubs me up the wrong way when a \"comedy\" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-053737da31a6402991f85857bf2318af", "input": "Review: One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ade60fb8ab6b4151a996324bfe616ef4", "input": "Review: This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding \"the bug\". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-807654efbc9341ab8f734b7e451a78f9", "input": "Review: I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd52ff6d9a924fe193d42010b136d2e3", "input": "Review: 0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-315f074c4b1d4baf8e622418ef5b2df2", "input": "Review: Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, \"The Song of Ruth\" and \"Esther and the King.\" It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53fcb30efcf74270826f2d0351604064", "input": "Review: This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as \"Army of Darkness.\" AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. \"House of the Dead\" fails to be \"good bad.\".There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-785a991d154d41daaf7aafea886531b3", "input": "Review: Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed \"military genius\" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-553ea562f7c54ff497c2784589fca214", "input": "Review: A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem \"solved\". They are of course \"out foxed\" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.The\"film\" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5040fc7267ec47929adb273498b5d3c6", "input": "Review: The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing \"Tower of Song\" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f2951393eac49be8b719ba62e3906f3", "input": "Review: Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, \"Dark Floors\" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of \"Floors\" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, \"Dark Floors\" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group \"Lordi\" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.Any film that has their lead character use the phrase \"it's too quiet\" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point. Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the \"couple\" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. \"The Shining\" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in \"Dawn Of The Dead\" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in \"Alien\" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in \"Dark Floors\" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere \"Lordi\" just aren't scary.It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as \"Hollywood\" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. \"Dark Floors\" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7abedfc405dd496cad4620492e3ddbea", "input": "Review: I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, \"Burning Moon\". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, \"Premutos\" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially \"Braindead\". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in \"Bad Taste\", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fe7148b74db4b40804a2ad3be7b5457", "input": "Review: \"The Lion King\" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries! 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2af06e4e70464fbe8bb9d62e62b65a22", "input": "Review: This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0a8512526504dd7a6136b3ddce1f14c", "input": "Review: Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-147be60caf1c4a058ff26c5f2e8826e7", "input": "Review: When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the \"Happy Cat\" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's \"all the rage abroad\"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c92b32f8d65c476a9a5a7e511c566093", "input": "Review: Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did \"Attack of the THE Eye Creatures\" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's \"eh-I-grew-out-of-it\" conspiracy drawer, here's \"Down On Us (i.e.- \"Beyond the Doors\") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the \"twist\" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.But like the man said: \"Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll.\"Not this flick, though.No stars for \"Down on Us\". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eec21a53c02d4e5ab89fdbde0eaf5944", "input": "Review: Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la \"Star Trek\" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired \"fright factor\" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it. One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c97be42fc91b4537966cc1863e7f8f93", "input": "Review: Rip off of \"Scream\" or especially \"I know what you did last summer\", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cbd6b14f0e94a0cb4971bbdc2c4265b", "input": "Review: for whoever play games video games here did anybody notice that the GTA:Vice City Mansion inside the game and some other things including weapons from the movie that are connected to this movie and this movie inspired the makers of the game (Rockstar Games) to copy some things from this movie and by the way this is one of the best 80's movies out there i recommend this for anybody who still didn't see it 10/10 no questions asked Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-462a7fc473da4695b814dd9a0251dfa3", "input": "Review: \"My child, my sister, dream How sweet all things would seem Were we in that kind land to live together, And there love slow and long, There love and die among Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather.\"Charles Baudelaire Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, \"Enachanted April\" can be described in one sentence – it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that \"Enchanted April\" - an ultimate \"feel good\" movie is perfection of its genre. Lovely and sunny, tender and peaceful, kind and magical, it is like a ray of sun on your face during springtime when you want to close your eyes and smile and stop this moment of serene happiness and cherish it forever. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It helped me to regain my optimism and hope that anything could be changed and anything is possible. I had promised to myself then that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I did and I was not alone.Charming, enchanting, and heartwarming, \"Enchanted April\" is one of the best movies ever made and my eternal love. This little film is a diamond of highest quality. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8a4b3a138124edfa98f697708ab6c57", "input": "Review: One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.A great look at life in the late 40's. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d14c028c060453ba141b14f3d84e071", "input": "Review: From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6fc734bf0804d9ba0d639f082c2edeb", "input": "Review: I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd462a2d94b24054b4f9bb400d3486ce", "input": "Review: What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f12a9416e624527a61a0b402898ed52", "input": "Review: I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says \"Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d99a8788f1504bac88739349a93aeed7", "input": "Review: This is a total waste of money. The production is poor, the special effects are terrible. In my country they had the courage to put this film on video named as \"The Mummy\" because of the success of Brendan Fraser`s film. I`m sure that you can find better horror movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2672630396d6491689b628d5a5e2f2b8", "input": "Review: Legendary movie producer Walt Disney brought three of the world's greatest fairy tales to the screen. They remain among the most popular animated films of all time. The first was his groundbreaking classic \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" released in 1937. The last was the then-under appreciated \"Sleeping Beauty\" which made it's debut in 1959. In between these two was perhaps his most satisfying adaptation of a classic fairy tale: \"Cinderella\" (1950). Of the three films, \"Cinderella\" is the one most faithful to its origins. Ironically, unlike \"Snow White\", which for better or worse, became for many the definitive version of the story. \"Cinderella\" did not follow the same path. Although it was a hit and, like \"Snow White\", was responsible for restoring the dwindling Disney fortunes, it never achieved the same audience recognition which it certainly deserved. Disney, for once, did himself proud, electing not to tamper with a classic, instead elaborating and adding substance to the tale, rather than rewriting it for the screen. The result was enchanting. A combination of superb animation (in beautifully soft Technicolor) and the perfect voice talents brought the story to life with a radiance that endures to this day. Ilene Woods, who was a radio performer, recorded demonstration discs of the songs as a favor to the authors of the material, Al Hoffman, Mack David, and Jerry Livingston. When Disney heard them, he knew he had found his Cinderella. And indeed he had. Woods heartfelt renditions of \"A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes\", \"So This Is Love\" and \"Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale\" are perfect. Eleanor Audley, who would go on to voice Maleficent in \"Sleeping Beauty\", masterfully captured the icy cruelty of the stepmother, while Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss were convincingly nasty stepsisters. Luis Van Rooten admirably performed as both the King and the Grand Duke, and James Macdonald was endearing as both Jaq and Gus, Cinderella's devoted mice. William Phipps has little dialog as the prince (future talk show host Mike Douglas provided his singing voice) but film (and Disney) veteran, Verna Felton was born to play the fairy godmother, and she made the best number, (the Oscar-nominated \"Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo\") her own show-stopper. Among the artists responsible for the \"look\" of the film, was Mary Blair, whose inspired use of color was greatly admired by Disney. Her elegant French-period backgrounds add tremendously to the quality of the movie. But, most important of all' are the believable characters--from Cinderella, right down to Lucifer, the stepmother's deliciously evil cat. They bring both life and vibrancy to the often told story, something very difficult to create in an animated film.In conjunction with the film's 55-year anniversary, (and, not so coincidentally, the coming holiday season) \"Cinderella\" has just been released on a special edition DVD. It simply has never looked better. The fully restored film must be seen to be appreciated--suffice it to say, it looks wonderful. An enhanced stereo soundtrack has been added, and serves the music well. The DVD extras, now a standard part of Disney Platinum Editions, are too numerous to list here, but as usual, some are directed towards children, some are slanted to adults, and the rest fall somewhere in between. But real fans will want to get the Deluxe Gift Set, because, along with an actual cell from the film and eight character sketches, it includes a 160-page hardback book, which not only incorporates most of the material found in the book with the 1995 special edition home video release, but much more as well. As usual for Disney, \"Cinderella\" will only be available for a limited time. So, if like me, you are a \"Cinderella\" lover, get it NOW! This edition is truly a \"Dream Come True.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09f228b0118a4082b9fde7dfb82e9f7c", "input": "Review: Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c249e8928abc4356a7b2b855d6c23cdc", "input": "Review: This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in \"reefer madness\" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce7089a87e4540f1808db99ace0ebf68", "input": "Review: It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?' Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36c69539a3584b2db1a564719ec6fa6a", "input": "Review: Redline is a knockoff of Fast & Furious, without any of the redeeming qualities. It doesn't need to have a convoluted plot with multiple twists and surprises, but it needs SOMETHING! This is the equivalent of a porn film, where the storyline and dialogue consist of 60 seconds at the beginning and the same at the end. Except that this is worse, because you don't get your money's worth. Mind-numbingly boring, impossible race sequences, and a terrible waste of expensive beautiful cars, which almost acquire negative points for having appeared in this movie. Sure, she's hot, but who's that desperate for an on screen female? I feel like the director sat there with a hat full of dialogue and plot snippets, and shook an 8 ball every time they switched scenes. No serious person who races or knows anything about it would watch this movie and enjoy the race scenes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-058d044676da4a2c9ecde600a375fe39", "input": "Review: Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b455cdafccfa4af5972874ba91e68f7d", "input": "Review: After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display My Grade: D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1b2c228692b490e91a257fec1a0f0c5", "input": "Review: ....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say \"WHY?\". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a \"Worst Movie Party\", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-172464fbfdc741ae9fbfb6a80a0d5333", "input": "Review: Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-244435fe7eef4c34ba49abef263e6256", "input": "Review: Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the \"latin lover\", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b6e6ac1016847a1882febb30e80a693", "input": "Review: This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.There is not a false moment in this film.The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94fce4a96c81474f85f35c99493c8367", "input": "Review: I loved the idea of this film from the moment I first saw a trailer for it. Einstein has always been one of my heroes and the image of him as the kindly, playful, slightly mad genius was enough to get me to see the film. The added spice of Matthau as Einstein made it even better.The story is pure fantasy, but a delightful one. An auto mechanic falls in love with a beautiful woman, who happens to be Einstein's niece. With the help of four Fairy Godfathers of Physics, Ed embarks on a quest to win Catherine's heart. Throw a jealous fiancé (who exemplifies the worst of experimental psychology) and Eisenhower into the mix, and you have pure fun.The film is filled with great character actors and delightfully sweet and daffy performances. Walter Matthau play Einstein as a mischievous imp; cupid with a slide rule. Tim Robbins is wonderfully endearing as Ed and Meg Ryan plays a step above her normal rom-com level. Stephen fry is a joy as the \"RRRatman\" and Ryan's fiancé; who lacks a single romantic bone in his body.The film fell below most radars, but is a delightful treasure that does not grow stale with repeated viewings. It features first-rate writing and performances and is a gentle treat in a less than gentle world. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2cf9649f9944ded99dd34d5719c4372", "input": "Review: The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4ea49b58c60485ebb480bcac311ac4b", "input": "Review: In the immortal \"Shaun of the Dead\", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. \"Fido\" presents us with an epilogue to \"Shaun\" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original \"what-if...?\" movie.The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic \"boy-and-his-dog\" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his \"pet\" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including \"The Matrix\"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), \"Fido\" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.\"Fido\" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible \"Shaun of the Dead\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-97b0b91215ec48f0a2da427b17132181", "input": "Review: After seeing this film at the SF Independent Film Festival, I couldn't wait to hear about how to get a copy. Jim McKay gave a talk (Q&A) about the film afterward which presented his ironic situation: how to get distribution for a film which portrays minorities (women, non-whites) working on resolving controversial issues (teen pregnancy, teen motherhood, racial identity, single-mother households), and how to write a faithful script on all of these topics being a mid-thirties white male. The multi-racial, multi-gendered audience of mostly-adults raved about the film's fantastic storyline, detailed characters, and fantastic portrayal of \"real teen life.\" Most of the teens, however, had left the building--leading me to think this is a film best seen by adults with kids, as a starting point for discussion rather than, as many adults there felt, \"a film teens should see because it's about them.\" Hence, distribution questions--how do we get our hands on it? The Internet (retail) would be a great path--this is a film that will be buried, like \"Pups\" or other radical modern teen films--and McKay seemed responsive. As for his credits as a writer/director, McKay was _extremeley_ sensitive and detailed in his work--allying himself to the Crown Heights neighborhood in which the film is set, working with actors to portray characters in their own vision of what they think should be--with the results being disarmingly realistic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f510c844d79c4d8794c3bba4d04576c6", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.Overall i thought this film was fantastic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ab5588bcb1e47e4acc9441f49cb681a", "input": "Review: What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its \"gotcha\" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a \"shot-on-video\" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46bad04e39c5495c84df8a290b83193d", "input": "Review: This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in color. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06c5b797ded74d41880ad817f49ee1a7", "input": "Review: I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? \"Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well.\" Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb3376e959ab4c7984987fd7e3efc58a", "input": "Review: Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame \"hunters\" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.By comparison, JASON X: \"FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE\" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e86faa8e0c244e5faa142305066caeed", "input": "Review: Hey everyone...There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The \"Clown Killer\" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.1 star out of ten. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b42d081ab59643bc95cbd276ddc7c200", "input": "Review: There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-98395af98cd54dfbb7fd64904db8069c", "input": "Review: Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai (\"Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2027933ff324b2cba865f83403933d4", "input": "Review: This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- \"Blind? Then what does he look at?\" After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the \"invisible\" neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99b55cc930114271a63eb8f4b779cbf9", "input": "Review: Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01b3ecea0f8a4d4b93e48cb73c7a8286", "input": "Review: Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's \"Blue Fairy Godmother.\"This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6626f4b5b2814b3d82b1eb9d454eb869", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when Mystery Science Theater ran it in 1993. It is the worst thing I've ever seen. So bad in fact, that by sheer freakiness, this movie must get a ten rating because it has to be seen to be believed. Whoever wrote this script with children in mind should be beaten. I mean, really, the Devil vs. Santa? Visions of Hell? Creepy laughing wind-up reindeer? Forced Child labor with racial stereotypes? It ain't Sesame Street, that's for sure.As Crow exclaims during the MST3K showing, \"This is good ol' fashioned nightmare fuel!\" There's plenty of weird innuendo and screwed up theology. Merlin (presumably the Arthurian Merlin) hangs out with Santa in his crazy castle in the clouds (i.e. Heaven). Santa talks about baby Jesus and sends letters to \"Mr. Stork\" for children who ask for siblings. There are symbols around the castle that either look like pentagrams or RAF stars. My best friend and I have watch it every year since 1993 and we subject anybody we can hold down for 2 hours to watch it with us. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8125a1668c8404283131d71a590198d", "input": "Review: Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-032093d4bda94371a682543dfe6585c7", "input": "Review: I'm so glad I happened to see this video at the store. I was looking for some happy movies and this one turned out to be a true gem. I loved that the movie, a love story of sorts, wasn't about some beautiful twenty-somethings; rather, it's a story of some beautiful sixty-somethings, who used used to be twenty-somethings. It's a good, well written, and wonderfully acted story with fabulous WWII band music thrown in as well. It's also got a delightful surprise in it for Scottish castle lovers. It left me smiling and ready to watch it again, which I did a couple more times before I turned it in. I highly recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e9e962eb9bd4ee891c3b96d41066fee", "input": "Review: This film would usually classify as the worst movie production ever. Ever. But in my opinion it is possibly the funniest. The horrifying direction and screenplay makes this film priceless. I bought the movie whilst sifting through the bargain DVD's at my local pound shop. Me and some friends then watched it, admittedly whilst rather drunk. It soon occurred that this wasn't any normal film. Instead a priceless relic of what will probably be James Cahill's last film. At first we were confused and were screaming for the DVD player to be turned off but thankfully in our abnormal state no-one could be bothered. Instead we watched the film right through. At the end we soon realised we had found any wasters dream, something that you can acceptably laugh at for hours, whilst laughing for all the wrong reasons. We soon showed all our other friends and they too agreed, this wasn't a work of abysmal film. This was a film that you can truly wet yourself laughing at. This was a film that anyone can enjoy. This was genius. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a3216ba86164682839e530c87a303d8", "input": "Review: Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb320670dce244729f50b0e0be6ce71d", "input": "Review: I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the \"Halloween\"s or \"Friday the Thirteenth\"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary. What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .) The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!! This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try \"Reversal of Fortune\". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson. The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the \"Gumby\" short, however, it makes for good viewing. Two stars for \"The Screaming Skull\"; eight stars for the MST3K version. And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: \"How bad is this film?\" \"You have no idea!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fed7b74d7d8548b3a0c98d412d599d6a", "input": "Review: I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of \"actual\" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for \"genuineness\" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fd9d54d676c4ad4b18e17395d651149", "input": "Review: ...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst \"D\" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression \"less is more\". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e84ec13e46d49b2a3cb5204fc03bcd6", "input": "Review: Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill \"One-Take\" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-25c41ca0737548b6b6bcd6001455eff7", "input": "Review: Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e902550dcb24a59b6e420cadf4e6374", "input": "Review: My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-755c1bce2e5b42a3846b28c88098318c", "input": "Review: What a snore-fest.Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e593498d6c884aa5b4e80bbdb4308db4", "input": "Review: I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key \"thrilling\" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The \"horror\" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the \"special effects\" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb7250d59bb24ab9bf992f0ebbd64068", "input": "Review: Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is \"The General\", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.Like \"Goodfellas\" (1990) and \"American Gangster\" (2007)—two superior mob movies—\"The General\" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous \"Goodfellas\" (1990) and the first two \"Godfather\" films, I was expecting too much from \"The General.\" But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. \"Schindler's List\" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. \"The General\", made just five years after \"Schindler's List\" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like \"Schindler's List\" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not one—not one—character in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was \"okay…so what?\" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say \"so what?\" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7b96f275cea477c873dfeb4d2267e0d", "input": "Review: I first saw Rob Roy twelve years ago. With little money for entertainment, I rented it for my fiancé and I to watch on a bone chilling winter's night. The movie I had wanted was gone, so I rented this instead, not expecting much, and was very much surprised with how good it was. I just recently watched it again, and loved it every bit as much as the first time. For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about Scottish outlaw Robert Roy MacGregor, a cattleman and folk hero. From the little I know about the man and his story, liberties have been taken with the facts, but it's a movie, not a textbook, and so the filmmakers can be excused. Basically, the plot of the movie is that Rob Roy borrows money from the Marquis of Montrose to buy cattle which he then intends to sell and reap a large profit from. But, his plan is foiled when the friend entrusted with the money is robbed of the cash and murdered in the forest. Our hero finds himself on the run after failing to settle the matter with the Marquis, and Mary, his wife, suffers a sadistic rape at the hands of Archibald Cunningham, a smarmy Englishman with no soul. Atrocities ensue, until, in an immensely satisfying conclusion, Rob carves Archibald up like a Christmas turkey. There are many great performances in this movie, but allow me to touch specifically on a few. Liam Neeson, as usual, is fantastic, a sexy beast you can't take your eyes off of. Honestly, this man is like ice cream: even when he's bad he's good. His Rob Roy is an honourable man struggling to provide for those who depend on him, in the best way he knows how. Jessica Lange, as Mary, gives this woman a fierceness which is a nice change from the simpering, dull movie wives audiences are usually forced to endure. You just know she doesn't take any b.s from Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Tim Roth is completely over the top with his portrayal of the evil Archibald, yet somehow, it works. All the posturing and preening, combined with some wicked dialogue, result in one of the most memorable movie villains in recent memory. Combine all of this, and the stellar work by other supporting players, with the luscious scenery of Scotland, and you have what amounts to one really, really cool movie. If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f1789bc91644b4fa7143312e30a6aa3", "input": "Review: B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-586f9a560b7f4bdc98ecf7f68a757668", "input": "Review: This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall \"Tex\" Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd11865df1d246e1ab081acf4ed18ae8", "input": "Review: Yeah, I \"get\" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his \"Decameron\" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed \"realism\" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.And Pasolini's \"Decameron\" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say \"Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!\" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's \"Decameron\" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy (\"Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?\") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's \"Satyricon\". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas \"Decameron\" fails by those same elements. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f03115b32fb4ba6a5888482c66c826c", "input": "Review: The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6117a906888b44238ebfb16aa1ea8538", "input": "Review: the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats \"dole scum\" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a85c713d7d68445ead94aeb0ce4249b6", "input": "Review: The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88e6ade799da4c259e4daeae4d15b4d0", "input": "Review: Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96e87f1352cc4de3b351a2b02e4335c0", "input": "Review: Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe43eb0afbb24ee8806a6eeb83d8745a", "input": "Review: I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those \"Cosmo's moon\" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a \"Cosmo's moon\" is? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6176911e3e1b4dc082d9a7385e2f2766", "input": "Review: Spoilers.First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead – I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought – if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87723d8554ca4b4b8c1d63a13bc49588", "input": "Review: It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.My rating: 1/5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d29481bafa54bf39d1612646f314fd4", "input": "Review: I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4f2747afafa448794e7c56a84e54287", "input": "Review: This wilfully bizarre adaptation of Borges short story is typical Cox. His strong visual sense is, as usual, undone by the appalling half baked acting of most of the cast. The film is definitely in the surreal tradition of Bunuel's Mexican period, and looks at times like a poor man's take on Lars Von Trier's Elements of Crime. Cox's apparent preference for single takes, jump cuts, and ambient sound recording all work against the film's effectiveness. Worth a look but ultimately disappointing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47e7e5df003f426e9469b0daf5fc00a1", "input": "Review: After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But \"the last great American Western\", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often. If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.3 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c033dfde396543dd9cd51c6d42cbf5ed", "input": "Review: Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of \"how is he going to tell her such and such\" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f5f4441c2e14d7fa73a68ef6e3dbd78", "input": "Review: Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41d3e30393d549508e26e753d1431dba", "input": "Review: Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e45c6dec33c94bc0b6bbd8cb22a2a3e4", "input": "Review: When seeing this movie you should take notice to that it´s not a normal movie. It has no real story just characters, a bunch of gangster characters who come together in a perfect harmony. The dialogue is wonderful, you can just lay back and listen. The movie stands out thats why it´s hard to find a right way of describing it.Thats why the user comments on this movie is so mixed.I for one love the movie and recommend it to all who love one-liners and things that differ from the \"normal\". You can´t really put the finger on what´s so wonderful about it it´s just a comical world where gangsters rule. A place of love and danger. A movie that you can see more than one time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-848e37121d434c1b87d114b196321cd9", "input": "Review: First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15febe40aa6141c58bad21e3e31db459", "input": "Review: First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example \"how do the furlings look like\" by creating that stupid \"previously on...\"......is simply embarrassing.Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8aab0cedf1e48c89220ee73c5f75c5f", "input": "Review: Yes, Shakespeare would indeed have been proud. Laurence Fishburne was not at his best but certainly not bad. Kenneth Brannagh on the other hand was brilliant. His scheming was wonderful as was his toying with the audience. Very nice work.There were at times too little drama where more would have been expected. Cassio's slaying, for instance, was a bit clouded by too much happening to far apart, causing the spectator to twist his head to grasp it all.Did I mention Michael Maloney? His madness striken Roderigo was unusual; annoying even.If you haven't seen Othello before, see this. If you haven't read Othello, see this. If you haven't heard Othello, see this. You do, on the other hand, do yourself a favour by reading it, seeing it acted onstage and hearing it sung too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75b91b401878475abace54ecea6cd557", "input": "Review: I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go \"What the f*ck did I just see?\" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like \"The Grudge\" or even \"Silent Hill\". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9224bd4a9bb541168c5c935b228a2cda", "input": "Review: I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b764d55a3d724d30b886b03684080011", "input": "Review: This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb1f33b3876747c49cb410670bae6d09", "input": "Review: I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus. First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.So, if you don't care at all about the following: - acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were). - theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others). - soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script). - scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and \"women,\" this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4ab719a47734cc885fe5eac43dfee4b", "input": "Review: Hardcastle and McCormick is an excellent TV show. Yes, it is predictable much like The Dukes of Hazzard, Hunter, The A-Team, etc etc etc.This show is just good clean television. The relationship between Hardcastle and McCormick is quite amusing. They often take jabs at each other several times an episode, which adds a great deal of humor to the show. It contains several car chases in almost every episode, but, who doesn't enjoy a good car chase? Especially with the Coyote! I only wish they made clean television like this today I highly recommend this! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5beecd74b40d412aaad15227dece9cbf", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorites along with the Mariette Hartley and Robert Lansing \"Sandy\" and the Agnes Moorhead-and-the-tiny-spacemen episodes.It is an important take, from mid-1961, on the long Cold War that the U.S. was then embroiled in. The beaten-down city-scene, the near-starving characters' sparse dialog, their threadbare uniforms, and the minimal action \"says\" it all: the absurdity of an on-going conflict that threatens to destroy human life, modern civilization, and all that is sweet and redeeming about it.It is a \"fable\" because it was made in a time in which, had events turned out differently, such as the second Berlin Crisis (Spring 1961) and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962), it would have actually been a reasonable representation of one of the U.S.'s major cities, ruined and replete with a few miserable survivors. I also see it as a \"fable\" because it is not only a cautionary tale, but because it is the most redemptive of all our popular myths: it is a love story, set in an impossible situation, and involving two highly mismatched lovers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aafe87fe85ca49929ae0d181691362e5", "input": "Review: This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca572b76ed3b4f2dae44977d202641bd", "input": "Review: \"Black Angel\" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big \"give me a break\" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-190171d1681044c0b09a91c173befc5d", "input": "Review: Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b58b9ba661e94ee9928082603844cfae", "input": "Review: I just saw this movie the other day when I rented it, and I thought this was going to be just another movie with a girl trying to prove a point, but Diane joined boxing because she wanted to. I thought this movie was good. I gave it a 8/10. That's how good it is. Plus a movie with Michelle Rodriguez is always good. Even is she's been in only six. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2c15441655442c0a538a1824e33db4d", "input": "Review: The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none ! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce7aa740a0a044438e4b86698a0dd69e", "input": "Review: VAMPYRES Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: MonoA motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's \"Carmilla\" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3ecc60a2e1140d5951b2aa68648e3df", "input": "Review: I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the \"dress rehearsal\" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a62ef92bff74fdc8c638208b2d2b63d", "input": "Review: My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say \"hey, being mentally disabled is funny.\" Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd5450debc5d4f36a63bf1960b7bfcfd", "input": "Review: OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical TailerMy Grade: F Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d8f075966894dda99741ff45d3060f6", "input": "Review: I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5976ec32448c4ea6afbb5350a10d90aa", "input": "Review: I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the \"villain\" that they decided they needed to create \"conflict.\" Uh huh.To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.What a waste of the DVD format. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50688f7aa0144e09b746a1f0bd3533dd", "input": "Review: If this series supposed to be an improvement over Batman - The Animated Series, I, for one, think it failed terribly. The character drawing is lousy... (Catwoman, for instance, looks awful...) But what really annoyed me is that it made Batman look like a sort of wimp who just can't take care of himself in a battle, without the help of two, even three sidekicks. I mean, he's Batman, for God's sake! I know the comic books, I know that Nightwing and Batgirl are supposed to be Batman's allies, besides Robin, but still... making Batman say that he needs help from them... What, he can't handle a few punches? In BTAS, he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem... He's getting old? Come on...And another thing: I really don't think that Batman would allow a kid like Tim Drake to go into battle that soon, without years of hard training. One, it's irresponsible (and Batman is everything, but irresponsible), and two, it's not what happened in the comics, if we are to remain faithful to them.Batman - The Animated Series made history, with its animation, its stories and its characters... That really was a legend of Batman. The New Adventures series turned the legend into just another Batman flick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4967975601934854a27c5e587588c7a9", "input": "Review: \"True\" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, \"here watch this\", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a830caf39a548998dc06ccc49c7e24a", "input": "Review: This movie stars Jay Leno as a Detroit cop, Tony Costas and Pat Morita as a Tokyo cop sent to Detroit to retrieve a stolen prototype of a car motor. A Japanese man traveled to Detroit hoping to sell it to a up and coming car company ran by a man named Derrick Jarryd. Unfortunately for him the men who were supposed to negotiate the deal killed him and took the prototype. An angry Derek Jarryd tries to distance himself from Phillip Madras who led the men. But Madras(played by Chris Sarandon) has none of it and threatens Jarryd forcing him to continue their partnership. Meanwhile in the same junk yard where the Japanese man had been killed, a friend of Tony Costas was also killed by the same men. Tony's friend had been watching the junk yard.Tony sets out to find the killer against his superior's order. Tony is on robbery while obviously homicide should investigate the case. While Tony is investigating the crime he runs into the Japanese cop and mistakingly he arrests him. Eventually they end up working together on the case. They make an odd pair and there are some genuinely amusing parts as well as some ridiculous scenes such as Pat Morita jumping and kicking right through a the windshield of a moving car and kicking Madras in the head. But it ends up being an enjoyable buddy cop movie, at least in my opinion. Jay Leno is no actor, but he is likable in the role and Pat Morita is good as well. Still, they make for one of the more unlikely buddy cop duos in an action film. If you liked buddy cop films, cheesy 80's movies or you want to see Jay Leno as an actor then I recommend this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-729fba2e2f104fabb98ce156814d6775", "input": "Review: There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and \"angry\" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called \"Honor,\" but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4aeb7276b724f1b8ff5a5b6411b2533", "input": "Review: I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him \"Who are you?\" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d554c2d4724d46b3acc324a4c05b9553", "input": "Review: Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of \"The Highest Honor\" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-904f6dbde98a4099b5868528860e500c", "input": "Review: I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen \"South Pacific\" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72daee863d494141b9c5241f67d31965", "input": "Review: What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.EXCELLENT 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d155f17113a84002a7f11c8f6079eaee", "input": "Review: It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79e824e37a5b4e5e933ad4e8ce56453f", "input": "Review: This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0137c966c074f89b4ff7d548c9b70eb", "input": "Review: Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4469c45764b24371810bf3512d14567f", "input": "Review: Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13c1f56a2d4a4a8b96ecfaa15871fca6", "input": "Review: This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, \"Hollywood North\" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, \"Flight to Bogota\" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, \"Hollywood North\" is a great place to start. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5e31e35f11e4ceb9ec6b23e95fa336e", "input": "Review: For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3da97a9068834adea7e9751cb3d8836d", "input": "Review: Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d5eba3a3c5f4bf18be6389f591a9682", "input": "Review: This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called \"scares\" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f7aac8576334af0bd837491a10b0bde", "input": "Review: this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a243d92cb624a6e859f1193585823a9", "input": "Review: I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough. Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction. Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-825251b464024958a2cf178980bac232", "input": "Review: How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a8cd68b2e814c56b991750c51e999b7", "input": "Review: Easily one of the ten best movies of the 20th century. In Cold Blood is brilliant in the simplicity and realism of its storytelling, and absolutely riveting.Robert Blake walks away with the film. The story seems to be presented almost entirely from Perry's viewpoint, despite Dick being the leader and planner of the pair. The viewer will invariable perceive Dick as being more unstable, immature, and generally feel like Perry would not have been pulled into this nightmare but for Dick and his need to be somebody and pull off a big score.Based on a true story with particular attention to accuracy, In Cold Blood depicts the story behind the brutal and senseless murder of a rural Kansas family one cold, windy night, because Dick has bought into an age-old rural myth about prosperous farmers having a safe full of cash in their home. As \"prosecutor\" (a character that isn't given a name in the script), played by Will Geer, so astutely points out, their lives are bought for only $10 a head. Director Richard Brooks wisely chooses not to share with us the gruesome details of the murders until the end of the film, prior to this we only know it has happened and watch the lives of Dick and Perry slowly unravel as they attempt to escape not only being apprehended by law enforcement, but also Perry's own ever-escalating sense of impending doom. He repeatedly makes remarks, \"No one ever gets away with a thing like that,\" and \"I can't help thinking we left something behind that belongs to us.\" Dick is neither mature nor moral enough to feel any compelling sense of guilt over their crime, only irritation at Perry's. Indeed, after they are caught, it is Dick who breaks first, and suddenly faints when finally confronted with irrefutable proof that places the two men at the scene of the crime. I felt somewhat sorry for Perry from the very beginning of the film, and more-so as events progressed, but I only loathed Dick.The genius of the film is the engaging manner in which the story is played. We do not for a moment think we are watching actors portray characters, but that we are watching the actual participants and events as they occurred. The story is unrelenting, taunt, the run time slightly in excess of two hours feels more like just a few minutes.For those of you who are interested in such things, I noticed a couple of the \"Goofs\" listed here on the IMDb page for In Cold Blood are incorrect or exaggerated. Such as the \"reversed\" process shot, at the beginning of the film, as Dick and Perry are driving across the bridge into Kansas. To begin with, this isn't even a process shot, the camera is actually positioned in the backseat and the image you see beyond the windshield of the car is real. A large cargo truck located to the left front of Dick's Pontiac creates the optical illusion that they are going backward because it is traveling at a greater rate of speed, but closer examination will reveal that they are indeed going forward and it is an actual shot filmed from a moving vehicle. As I previously stated, this is one of the ten best works of 20th century cinema, not recommended for the very young due to some course language and implied and inferred violence (no actual in your face gore as a modern film would resort to), but a thoroughly excellent film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8578d8ffee141e1b8e47130da534a24", "input": "Review: Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been \"performers\" whose best days were NEVER.The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad1754427fda4bbda32c30abd32d5f24", "input": "Review: I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f33b2e08013d435dbc3abdb03e465e6e", "input": "Review: A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-000672dc882e4ede9ae1ed29b6afa981", "input": "Review: This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.This was worse than watching a car wreck. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32d5412ff1cb49e39afd5dc82cefb437", "input": "Review: The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe16a314a6b04656afe76cb35edb18c2", "input": "Review: \"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition\" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fccaa8f2ed0b4722a8a78cf8d44bf87a", "input": "Review: Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b6152a7a7fc459f94cbea1dd755b381", "input": "Review: Definitely one of the lesser of the Astaire/Rogers musicals. It's just very poorly plotted and paced. It only runs a few minutes longer than Swing Time, for example, but it feels a heck of a lot longer. This is partly due to the secondary romance between Randolph Scott and Harriet Hilliard. Scott is rarely ever interesting. I like Hilliard. She's sweet, and I love at least one of her songs, \"But Where Are You?\" (\"Get Thee Behind Me Satan\", her other number, is a weak leftover from Top Hat, thankfully cut from that masterpiece). Follow the Fleet would actually be a bad film if not for at least three brilliant dance sequences between Astaire and Rogers. The dancing contest vies for the top spot of any of their numbers. The dance is just fantastic. \"I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket\" presents the two rehearsing a dance that they don't quite have perfected yet. Its imperfections make it all the more perfect. And \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is easily one of Irving Berlin's best songs. So the film is well worth watching for its great moments. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e4a9365693d43de8704e11a1054dbeb", "input": "Review: Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f8bb9fa783a47999cd9b66101581fd3", "input": "Review: I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9538dbbb91584599b69f69bc5d469fa9", "input": "Review: This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0557acb3a0cb41efbb9b78d863c14084", "input": "Review: This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ded4822a8fda4bf1b0942d2933628ffc", "input": "Review: In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting \"actors\" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.\"Deliverance\" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.Overall, \"Deliverance\" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65377dea967b4fd3a8cb38003f6cbb53", "input": "Review: Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.) The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbcb45a0ba374393986381f51f7bcc8a", "input": "Review: I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.Boy, was I wrong.I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b661328d92d94cda9c5754cbc8e45253", "input": "Review: Did you ever wonder how far one movie could go? Schizophreniac relentlessly explores the world of the extreme with Harry Russo. Harry is an aggravated writer, killer and drug addict scumbag who will stop at nothing to destroy those who stand between him and insanity. Driven by the demonic voices of his ventriloquist dummy rubberneck, Harry begins his killing spree. From director Ron Atkins comes the 1st installment of the vilest story ever to be filmedThe only other movie I have seen similar to this would happen to be the 2nd installment entitled Schizophreniac NecromaniacThis is a really low budget film and will not be for everyone, but if you are looking for something disturbing, different and horrific then this would make a fine choice.DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING LIKE MODERN DAY HORROR (Such as Scream)Viewer discretion is advised Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52e69283193c4d8292115a5672eedbdf", "input": "Review: THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4b932112f1c4565bc84736628a26188", "input": "Review: Steven Spielberg wanted to win an Oscar so bad that he figured that he wouldn't win by directing special effects epics (he was nominated for three of them: \"Close Encounters of the Third Kind\", \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\", and \"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial\". So he decided to get very serious by directing \"The Color Purple\", a period film with no special effects. Spielberg's first serious drama is a remarkable movie. But the Academy voters who voted back in 1985 still didn't give Spielberg any respect. \"The Color Purple\" received 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but Spielberg was unfairly snubbed when he wasn't nominated for Best Director. It got worse on Oscar night when this film didn't win a single Oscar. It got completely shut out. That wasn't right. \"The Color Purple\" should have won a couple of Oscars including one for Whoopi Goldberg's spectacular film debut as Celie, a woman who suffers at the hands of an abusive husband (frightfully placed by Danny Glover), then gets stronger throughout the film thanks to some special friends. Oprah Winfrey also made her film debut here and gives a great performance as Sofia, one of those friends' of Celie. Since I'm from Chicago, I had already known Winfrey from her talk show (which at the time of this films' release hadn't gone nationwide). Like Goldberg, what a film debut! Margaret Avery is terrific as Shug Avery, another friend who also happens to be the mistress of Celie's rotten husband. All three actresses received well-deserved Oscar nominations for their work here (Goldberg for Best Actress; Winfrey and Avery for Best Supporting Actress). Set in the south during the first half of the 20th Century, \"The Color Purple\" is a film so strong that it made me cry at the end. It also made me laugh at times too. Why Academy voters were so hard on not nominating Spielberg for Best Director is a mystery that still puzzles me today. But Spielberg would eventully go on to win two Oscars years later for \"Schindler's List\" and \"Saving Private Ryan\", making him one of the best movie directors of all-time. But he should have gotten nominated for this movie. The job that he did going from special effects blockbusters like \"E.T.\" to a serious drama like \"The Color Purple\" was remarkable.**** (out of four) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-002dc8ecdbef4d04a4d63a031736e430", "input": "Review: Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at \"The Wedding\".This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the \"American Pie Presents\" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e0de2209fe14e1db7b021e447503195", "input": "Review: When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall \"Craig Manor\", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line \"I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U.\" Whew!THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla \"She Creature\" English, 50s hunk John \"Revenge Of The Creature\" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess \"Mr. Susan Hayward\" Barker, Kathleen \"It Came From Outer Space\" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d891e97266645428215223f2f3c30eb", "input": "Review: This is a really well made movie. Sumitra Bhave has always made sensible cinema and this is my favourite film by her. This movie should have won the National Award and would have been my pick to represent India at the Oscars. It is at least a thousand times better than 'Shaaws', which is going to the Oscars, from India, this year.It is such a pity that the information about this (and all other Indian movies) on IMDb is lacking and sometimes even wrong. Sadashiv Amrapurkar played a very important character in this movie and he is not even credited on these pages. The rest of the cast and crew too are not mentioned at all. Awards and nominations for this movie are not given even when Sonali Kulkarni won the Indian National Award for this movie. There was not even a single vote cast for 'Doghi'.'Doghi' is not a Hindi movie. It is Marathi, and thankfully escapes the song and dance sequence, does not get tangled up in glitzy glamour and half-witted designer ware. It is a real life, soulful story that is made with a rare understanding and respect.'Doghi' which can roughly be translated as 'two women' is a story of two sisters, Gauri and Krishna. It is actually a very simple story, Sumitra Bhave does not venture into many sub plots, and that makes it a very difficult film to direct. The entire movie is set in a non-descript remote village in Maharashtra and the screen rarely ventures far from the house of the two female protagonists. No aesthetic sunsets in this one.The movie opens and we are introduced to the entire house, which is preparing for Gauri's wedding. Gauri and Krishna's father being a hard working farmer, the house is full and happy; there is nothing wanting in their simple lives. However on the eve of the wedding Gauri's to-be-husband meets with a fatal accident. Gauri's father cannot bear the tragic news and suffers a major stroke. Without a strong, working member the house could have fallen apart but Gauri's mother shoulders the responsibility. She works as and when she can, but cannot make ends meet. But her life still, is easier than Gauri's. Superstitions, that people half-heartedly try to forget, make Gauri an evil luck bringer. She is outcast from the society.Gauri's mother writes to her brother. Desperate for help she accepts his suggestion. He takes Gauri off to Mumbai where she is made to work in brothels. Gauri sends home the money she earns and their conditions improve. Gauri gives her life for that of her family's.However when Gauri returns home for Krishna's wedding, her mother does not come out to meet her. She does not allow Krishna near her and does not allow Gauri in front of the guests. She loves Gauri but fears for Krishna's life. This breaks Gauri completely and she decides to return to her unfortunate life. But Krishna runs out and holds Gauri. She begs her beloved sister to return. Krishna promises to stand by her. Promises that they would face the world – together.There is nothing that is not required in this movie. Everything is necessary and sufficient. Gauri goes off to Mumbai but what she does there is never told – the subtle dialogues tell us what there is to know. It just the bare story, which is profound in its simplicity.'Doghi' is responsible cinema. It is respectful to the subject it handles. It is respectful towards its audience – it does not think them to have the mental capability of a four year old.The acting is first rate. The direction is marvelous – the silences carry the story forward in a way, no words could have. The script is well researched.Anyone who appreciates good cinema is bound to like 'Doghi'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9e5f9d3d1814d948c2d3450bda62dc3", "input": "Review: Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more. I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f01c2c6163d4fb28b1331feb7cc80dd", "input": "Review: I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.CD Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d33508d5ae645a282bc8e55fcdedb6a", "input": "Review: Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69e455350e214646ae1a41af229f6f14", "input": "Review: This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker. If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that. The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED ! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-583eb540a15e44dfbab52ea3369184c7", "input": "Review: Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-731852f46f3444e885bcb24ac715cd19", "input": "Review: This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-279f07ad648146a6b2e3d81917cd9455", "input": "Review: Those who only remember the late Sir Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot or a professional raconteur would do well to seek out this charming piece of late '60s satire. Ustinov stars as a convicted embezzler (we first see him during his last day in gaol where he is preparing the prison governor's tax return) who, sensing that the future is in computers, poses (by means of a deft piece of identity theft) as a computer expert and sets out to infiltrate an American multinational.Ustinov (who co-wrote the script) is on top form, as is the delightful Maggie Smith, here unusually cast as an accident-prone cockney-sparrow dolly bird. Bob Newhart also puts in an amusing performance as a suspicious executive who has designs on Maggie Smith. In addition, Karl Malden is satisfyingly sleazy as Ustinov and Newhart's womanising boss.What do I particularly like about this film? Not only is it a well-thought-out 'caper movie' but it's also a touching little love story; Ustinov and Smith are very convincing as the two misfits stumbling into love (the whole scene involving the deck of cards is particularly effective.)So, what is there not to like? Well, the script is no more computer-literate than most films (that is, hardly at all) even though it captures the feel of late '60s 'big iron' business computing quite well. Also there are a couple of small plot glitches that you're not likely to notice until the second or third viewing, but I consider these to be minor niggles.As I said, this is a film which is well worth seeking out, and after you've seen it once you'll want to see it again at regular intervals. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd6ea68bfabb49f6a7fe1e6d0839c2ea", "input": "Review: This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14254bc35aa04fa698ec60559e7f7cbf", "input": "Review: I saw this in the theater and I instantly thought that it is good enough to own on video. I am a big nut for Sci-Fi action flicks though anyway.Without giving any of the story away, it is worth seeing if you like Sci-Fi without requiring much thought. The story is basic, and the plot is very good. Worth your time to see!Maybe they will make a sequel? :)8 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69217648b0b54faf8e755754ac9b77a9", "input": "Review: Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.The only thing I liked about this film is the song \"'Bright Eyes\".If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9dd987375fb4433b7eb7ce2ade27ceb", "input": "Review: This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76cff64939d44feea2d6825a5e089d3f", "input": "Review: Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66e12612110e41018f05683e1c7da5fa", "input": "Review: For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like \" Oh my gawd it`s heading this way \" and \" Run for your lives \" then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5f1d59b65064031b5a47f837e69ae65", "input": "Review: Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the \"plot\" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-72822d01c146434398bb86ccc1c146c1", "input": "Review: The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-715a897d7aeb4137bd23704bce17457a", "input": "Review: There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and \"angry\" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called \"Honor,\" but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88a3cb1e2d13458b860e1a3c3b1c21d9", "input": "Review: I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd1388a988ca4c999ed8203d1275ccc2", "input": "Review: These are excerpts from a nine-page \"Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles\", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out): \"...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the \"theme\"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to \"Please Don't Kiss Me\" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as \"Disney\". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a \"falling down\" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny \"dramatic\" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, \"I want you to kill him.\" This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. \"Please Don't Kiss Me\" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to \"Please Don't Kiss Me\"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture.\"All of these edits from Orson were ignored Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d333d6933054e44b40ddffa1e33a201", "input": "Review: This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a2bdb89969f467cbb802356780ef78c", "input": "Review: I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in \"Love Story\" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58cb5814546944d0b969b96489d0e19f", "input": "Review: This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake. You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture. What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf5005989cdc4923ac21aa78929e6040", "input": "Review: Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17d424589cc64d3c917e2377cdedc38d", "input": "Review: A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-95f88e3ec6db47aa92a4bc0b4c3081ae", "input": "Review: Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f22f95f408ea4db6aa349856c6752c48", "input": "Review: This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-abc76a3ae8a7402eb056962052285302", "input": "Review: I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69bc89bad8444cfd8b612ac635530b78", "input": "Review: Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c6b08f924c648ec8280d302a01d8644", "input": "Review: This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.Avoid this movie like the plague.c Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcf5f0f4274b4826aa40b95dcd9f0695", "input": "Review: This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as \"Weeds\". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.The worst? The \"Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The \"He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78cd3c332f2e4c3b9cd67dce8a5c3e50", "input": "Review: I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.This film is invariably included in any list of the \"nastiest\" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true (\"I found this tape...\"), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm \"hard\"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the \"it's just a film\" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-179e512def2b47388fc2352f8b353c4d", "input": "Review: Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both \"life-like\" and real. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4b9cd6e1c494bf0ad5412be4ef4fa9a", "input": "Review: Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f720808ecc04baaa9a4d829972fc5a6", "input": "Review: \"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow\" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: \"We thought we'd come out for some fresh air\"...Dad: \"Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?\"), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-\"Scooby Doo\"-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b38dd1311153499a9dfe19ca6ea3207a", "input": "Review: I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was \"loose\". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1da2691da0344b468f26adb211fd7e6b", "input": "Review: I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c81993cd3a91444590036eff36d1aee8", "input": "Review: NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3eb27c7c884143dbb37572f4b50647f8", "input": "Review: Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed7100910adb46bba85e442b39e17b30", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie a few days ago, my eyes were completely fixed to the screen. Its greatness held my attention to such an extent that I focused all of my attention on it for its entire duration. I would recommend seeing it not just to fans of anime, but to anyone who likes great movies period (or who likes really weird stuff). The style of art is beautiful, the sound is perfect, and the symbolism within it is breathtaking. I've heard complaints about the weird insertion of English text in the movie, but I think the way its done is complementary to the strange style of the movie. The self-attributed description of \"Hello Kitty on acid\" doesn't do justice to this film of absolutely epic proportions. I'd like to find more works by whoever made this, and see them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f761bb596d964c419d7607af3a8c59df", "input": "Review: Take \"Rambo,\" mix in some \"Miami Vice,\" slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to \"Penthouse.\" Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see \"The Magnificent Seven\" (\"The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face\"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in \"Crime Story\" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo (\"Heat,\" \"Once Upon a Time in Mexico\") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, \"Bulletproof\" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d90db6c663a1460f88ea4dbe60456027", "input": "Review: 'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc65a498c4394189b41d91f93a673bdc", "input": "Review: Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08581a3e00dc450d9916fb96b04e0966", "input": "Review: This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong? Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d946e47b60549ddbd02d47f4f48f8ff", "input": "Review: I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2646f6c46d1248658072eb98677734d0", "input": "Review: Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out \"evil empire\", to use flippant Star War terms.So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - \"Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard\". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of \"cinema verite'\" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its \"honesty\" but...Look at the back of the box: \"Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution\" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a \"warm regard\"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire.\" Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b7bb29537c44dca978c3e6e14505733", "input": "Review: Full Moon High (1981) 3 of 5 Dir: Larry Cohen Stars: Adam Arkin, Ed McMahon, Roz KellyTony (Arkin) is your average ordinary high school guy. Prepping for the big homecoming game, girlfriend trouble and growing hair in strange places…you know the usual. But the hair in strange places part gets a wee bit out of control when a trip to Transylvania with his father (YES! McMahon) leaves him with a wicked case of the furballs. Now doomed to walk the world forever young as a werewolf how will Adam get any girls?'Full Moon High' is not often talked about but it is a silly and entertaining horror spoof. Larry Cohen (Q the Winged Serpent, The Stuff) incorporates as many gags as he can possibly come up with as writer / director. Arkin (H20: Halloween, 20 Years Later) shows nice timing in the lead role. If you happen to be a fan of spoofs like 'Airplane' and 'Student Bodies' I think you'll have fun with this chuckle-fest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e3cfdc52e304055afc37f1012a2b61f", "input": "Review: I have seen \"Miracles Still Happen\" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a5cd466595b4136b29f550e13e80adc", "input": "Review: It is very unfortunate when a movie such as this is made. A great deal of work and money has been put into a film that is amateur at best.The editing drags on, there are obvious mistakes that could have been corrected easily in a second take, and the soundtrack is unimaginative. So much more could have been done with this video movie. I guess they ran out of time, or videotape.Hand-held shots have a distinct amateur feel to them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ffa2ad194484097b0b37a9318673643", "input": "Review: Except for an awkward scene, this refreshing fairy tale fantasy has a fun and delightful undercurrent of adult cynical wit that charms its way into the audience as well as a soundtrack that powerfully moves this fairy epic along. Except for one of the Robert DeNiro scenes that doesn't come across smooth and appears out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie, this luscious romantic fairy tail has a great storytelling feel and the strong magic and the fine balance between serious adventure scenes and the lighter spiritual humor is well done. In the updated tradition of THE PRINCESS BRIDE this contemporary presentation of magic and love is captivating. Eight out of Ten Stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-31b55e1eff4b43d491b9a41c93b64a83", "input": "Review: Given the people involved, it is hard to see why this movie should be so messed up and dull. The writer, David Ward, wrote the amazing caper film \"The Sting\" two years later, Jane Fonda had just won an Academy Award for Klute, and Donald Sutherland had just done excellent work in films like \"Klute,\" \"Start the Revolution Without Me,\" and \"Kelly's Heroes.\" Plotwise, the movie is a caper tale, with a small gang of bumbling misfits planning a big heist. At the same time the movie wants to be hip satire, a series of comedy sketches of the type that the NBC television show \"Saturday Night\" would do so well two years later. The bad result is that the plot makes the comedy bits seem awkward and forced and the disconnected comedy bits destroy any kind of suspense that the heist might have. It is quite literally a movie that keeps smashing into itself, just as the cars in the cars in the demolition scenes run into each other.The only real interest for me was watching Jane Fonda. Her \"Iris Caine\" is supposed to be a light hearted version of her dramatic Bree Daniels prostitute character in \"Klute\" Yet, one doesn't believe her for a moment. It is always Jane Fonda pretending to be a prostitute that we are watching. It is as terrible a performance as her performance in \"Klute\" was terrific. It would be a good lesson for acting teachers to run the two films together to show how the same actress in the same type of role can be great or pathetic. It suggests that actors are only as good as their writers and directors. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddb1cac7bd1d45aa92de75fe0264d6cb", "input": "Review: ...And that's why hard to rate. From the adult point of view (hmm, student point of view:)). i must say i fell nearly asleep here. Sure, there is some laughing scene (all the credit takes here Eddie), but that can't save the disney type of script and whole movie, that's why2 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c9bb6942ab5496081edf078f60ffcc2", "input": "Review: This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say \"This is THE final movie in the series...\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-adbc5de7d4e440978423df556d86f5f4", "input": "Review: But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy! Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours. Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started. Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f1483305ffa41e293b8334335a30526", "input": "Review: Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of \"naughty\" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the \"naughty\" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's \"naughty\" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5755b3204f064cdda05bb00cbe56e41c", "input": "Review: Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. I even regret renting the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9430684c1d3d4f1b88195eb8db770dd9", "input": "Review: A story of amazing disinterest kills \"The Psychic\" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in \"The Psychic.\"3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca2ff8f155d0462fae1a26a486497425", "input": "Review: Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-540cdf7b6a814d76abe88b7f1489ccd7", "input": "Review: I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8133cdd5839240d09bd93d39152bda94", "input": "Review: I took a chance on \"Hardcastle and McCormick\" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-512a93ea97fe4af395ada7b1ca17eb35", "input": "Review: I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bee4f9166bb46e9aea48a9036679be4", "input": "Review: This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: \"Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does...\" Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk. The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:\"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it...\" ...and I ended up just loving it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb817e8ab0654073b4333908289c3974", "input": "Review: Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made \"Rock n Roll\" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got \"mad as the wrestler\" would say either \"Were out of time\" or \"Well be right back\" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who \"Georgeous\" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big \"Hes a big-on!\" punched or kicked in the guts \"right in the gussets\"or when kicked \"He punted him\" or \"the \"piledriver should be banned\" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say\"Right across the front-e-lobe\" or when a wrestler is in trouble \"Hes in a bad bad way\". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb69e8842a4f44dd950fb3f93f5c9c54", "input": "Review: this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-afcf6635b9f842fa9ffa1bccecbd7895", "input": "Review: Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.M. Pitts Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-daa4c6fd24c74ed8976ae121a18aa023", "input": "Review: I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-713b2d12362841efa8adcfac65d38496", "input": "Review: To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for \"musical concepts\" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, \"Norman Maine\" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer \"Vicky Lester\" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from \"Esther Blodgett\" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning \"Evergreen\" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1435e38f00ae4c698446925e7bd4d83d", "input": "Review: Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c3623b0378440128e068037e409b5d9", "input": "Review: 1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a \"sleepwalker\" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-879461b944914e93ac9d541279d5efb7", "input": "Review: Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6147c7d309f41c0a03bf509481e3b72", "input": "Review: I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel \"Jane Eyre\". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6edfc1e338434ff4a1fba576b64e478e", "input": "Review: When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2f540759aac4f45980ea66bcb406e05", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08606f982d7b46e3a410adbff5119c48", "input": "Review: I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-df19aa839a7944dda66bd6a3bace556f", "input": "Review: (Only minor spoilers except as noted).I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb \"Devil's Backbone\", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery (\"…if I can't have you nobody can….\"). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.In Britain, in several of our notorious \"serial killer\" or \"sex killer\" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: \"No, she didn't\". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says \"you know what I mean….\" thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but – Lecter aside – it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-03c2c522b66040d98a64f5c213a96f74", "input": "Review: Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdea4ea3cee7431e955379adef856048", "input": "Review: this independent film was one of the best films at the tall grass film festival that i have ever seen there i loved it there are so many things that was great about the film on top of all that the cast and crew that i had the opportunity to meet were absolutely phenomenal.I thought that Avi did a great job in his role. and Ricky Ullman was absolutely true to his role for a Disney actor i was amazed at his talent to be able to go from cheesy teen comedy to such an adult role with no problems the talent in the film was just amazing the cinematography was just great if you want to see an independent film this is one really that you should see.I think that Mr Gruver would have been so proud to have such a submission in his festival and his parents loved the movie so much when it won the audience favorite they went and saw it again. this truly was a great film it was dark and funny and sad and truly emotional it was just fabulous. I am honestly just so enthused by this film and i really don't want to spoil it for any one just see it and truly be amazed at it i think that these film makers really have what it takes to go places and I hope to see more work from them in the future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34271c1438c7485ab608af55213fd894", "input": "Review: Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)\"Feast of the Dead\" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the \"evil breeder\" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b046750c3ad4059917d202cf82a395b", "input": "Review: Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed83bc459d6a450ea757ff0ab3990508", "input": "Review: This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-abc8024a254049ee9e03727c040101fb", "input": "Review: This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66d72ac7cc714613acd7f891bfa73ce1", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies where I wish I had just stayed in the bar.The film is quite frankly boring. What story there is is very flimsy and you pretty much have to guess at it. The film indulges itself with pretentious camera techniques that seem intent on causing migraines and makes it look like a student film. Did I say it was boring already? If all the characters had suddenly died at the end of the movie I would not have cared less as I had no emotional attachment to any of them.There are about 4 good minutes in this movie, but that was about it. This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of a cinema during a performance, but I held on believing that it had to get better. I was wrong.The sort of film you could threaten naughty children with. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-743c6dd3efd948e9ba3fc808c9d963dc", "input": "Review: Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision – the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them – while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the \"demons\" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: \"This is our job now, son. We've got to do this.\" When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, \"If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this.\" The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-46630a1b0cca4195b7e81ca3de9b0db4", "input": "Review: Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say \"weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills\".Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.Superwonderscope says : 1 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c564506eca246dd858ba8dc5998729e", "input": "Review: Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price. Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-413a6faad56748f0843ecaded3503e45", "input": "Review: I have to say that this miniseries was the best interpretation of the beloved novel \"Jane Eyre\". Both Dalton and Clarke are very believable as Rochester and Jane. I've seen other versions, but none compare to this one. The best one for me. I could never imagine anyone else playing these characters ever again. The last time I saw this one was in 1984 when I was only 13. At that time, I was a bookworm and I had just read Charlotte Bronte's novel. I was completely enchanted by this miniseries and I remember not missing any of the episodes. I'd like to see it again because it's so good. :-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af0cd161e2b140c5a62e18d0138ee097", "input": "Review: Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is \"Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers\" (I will always remember that sweet song forever). I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-475fe409c4b64d0b9adaec769b99192b", "input": "Review: I went to see Fever Pitch with my Mom, and I can say that we both loved it. It wasn't the typical romantic comedy where someone is pining for the other, and blah blah blah... You weren't waiting for the climatic first kiss or for them to finally get together. It was more real, because you saw them through the relationship, rather than the whole movie be about them getting together. People could actually relate to the film, because it didn't seem like extraordinary circumstances, or impossible situations. It was really funny, and I think it was Jimmy Fallon's best performance. All in all... I would definitely recommend it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe6c4a082d0c486bb4d9cb5c1d08ef76", "input": "Review: Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f31e75e100044a6d88621ee678576a6d", "input": "Review: Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. \"Listen,\" their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0a490634a7640e5b3e5631b30736251", "input": "Review: this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aaf8f2792a524ac4acb8c2109f07e5a3", "input": "Review: Or \"Marlowe At Sea\". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women \"slim\" and \"dames\" and other such nonsense, is the only \"real male\" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in \"Casablanca\", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the \"cool lone cynic\" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant \"cool babe\" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called \"sexual innuendo\" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. \"Just purse your lips and whistle...\". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.If you're interested in reading my \"biographies\" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeddfcc22eae4d14abfd9be0cecc52c8", "input": "Review: What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12acee7cad86455e88f8ef3f3dc12f7a", "input": "Review: Noll's comfortable way of rolling out blunt comments, often with expletives, to describe things that he is more knowledgeable about than most is quite refreshing. There is one other character in the film that constantly tries to verbalize complicated issues, using more language than necessary. This guy should never have been given a Thesaurus. Cut to Noll and you know you're in for a treat!The way the pioneers of big wave surfing are portrayed is very evocative of a \"lost era\". Nevermind the fact that no one knows how these guys made a living, much less took care of issues like medical care. The use of old film clips throughout was masterfully done. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9555cc1b416461497bfc4326cf8dcf2", "input": "Review: Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b72ec8e035994f50a35056dbb53a6c98", "input": "Review: Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8061d28f94e4421a86ac5b5a436109f7", "input": "Review: EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c2bd08e60f04153b3403439d3b156d9", "input": "Review: I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the \"background\" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that \"home movie\" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer. If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c564fc56139402a9af94b30c5560413", "input": "Review: I have never been one to shy away from saying that most action films just plain do nothing for me. Most times they are blatant vehicles to blow stuff up, show off sexy models, and throw any semblance of reality or intelligence out the window. With that said, the Bourne series has been fantastic. Doug Liman ushered in a new take on action by using a more cinema verite style, showing the fights in full force and making our super spy someone we can relate to emotionally as well as humanly. This is not the sci-fi absurdity that was Bond (before they did an overhaul in the style of this series no less). There was a lot to worry for when the Bourne Supremacy came out. With director Paul Greengrass taking over, what could have been a second-hand copy of the original ended up being an improvement in style and flair. The stakes were raised and the story was enhanced because of it. Greengrass needs to be given a ton of credit for being able to keep up appearances with the latest installment, The Bourne Ultimatum. In what is an amazing conclusion to a top-notch trilogy, the action is brought to a new level and story and performance are never compromised.Once again, Bourne is brought into the minds of the CIA by false pretenses. Someone has leaked information about the Treadstone upgrade called Blackbriar and once Bourne is located trying to converse with the newswriter who broke the story, he is assumed to be the mole. Only Pamela Landy, she who was on the case to find him in Supremacy, knows that he can't be the one. Bourne's motive has always been to stay clear of the government and live his life in peace. It has been the CIA who keeps bringing him back into the open to wreak havoc on them. What ends up transpiring is that Bourne wants to know the source as well to finally find out the truth of who he is and what made him into a killer. The film, then, becomes a chase against time and each other to find the source and see if the government can close the breach and tie off all loose ends, or if Bourne can get his revenge on those who took his life from him.In what is probably the simplest storyline of the series, with only one chase lasting the entirety of the story, it has possibly the biggest cast of characters and turning over of loyalties to expose the corruption that has been behind the full story progression. This is not a detriment at all, however, as it allows for more fights and car chases that work in full context to the plot. Admission to this film is worth it for the apartment fight, between Bourne and the CIA's second asset, alone. The chase jumping through windows in Madrid is cool on its own, but when they finally meet up, we get a ten minute or so fight that is as invigorating to watch as any scene you'll see. Also, rather than using a massive car chase as a climatic set piece like in the first two films, we instead get around three small scale road races, just as intense, but staggered enough to never bog the action down into monotony.After five years of waiting, we also find out the origin of our favorite operative with heart and feeling. By the end of the film we will find out what has been the cause of all the espionage and destruction that has taken place around him. No one could have done it better than Matt Damon. He has the physique and attitude to be believable in the action sequences, but also the range to pull off the moments of intelligence and cat and mouse correspondence with those against him. Joan Allen reprises her role with the same amount of dedication to her job, but also a bit more disenchantment for what is going on around her after how Brian Cox's character, from the first two films, took matters into his own hands. Needing a role in that mold, we are given a nice turn from David Strathairn. Like Cox, he is working at the top of the food chain and answers to no one when making a decision. With as much trying to cover up any connections to his bosses of the Blackbriar program as he is trying to do his duty to his country, you can never quite gauge what he will be capable of doing. Even the little guys do a wonderful job, like Paddy Considine as the reporter who starts the leak at the center of everything, Albert Finney as a man from Bourne's past and possibly key to his origin, and Edgar Ramirez as one of the CIA's operatives sent to take Bourne out. Ramirez is a nice addition to the role that has been successfully played by Clive Owen (Identity), Karl Urban, and Martin Csokas (Supremacy). He doesn't talk much, if at all, but he has the look and robotic efficiency down pat and hopefully will get more roles to show what he can do post a nice turn in Domino.In the end, one has to applaud Paul Greengrass for continuing to exceed expectations and bring this series to a conclusion that builds on the success of its predecessors rather than destroy them. His skill at the close-up hand-held look is astonishing and has the same kinetic energy as Tony Scott, but without quite the seizure-inducing cuts. Rather than feel like over- production, his use of hand-held enhances the environment and puts you directly into the action. Let's also credit cinematographer Oliver Wood, who shot all three Bourne films. He was able to work with both directors and work his style into a nice harmony with them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-560826fd96a44330b67cb2d3f4ffeccb", "input": "Review: I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is \"Eh\" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0d15b28608c4a829e071994674ce48e", "input": "Review: The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this \"thing\" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f5055a4aeb346bcab83211963b5d84f", "input": "Review: First, I am not really a fan of the whole \"things eating flesh in disgusting new ways\" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4915f314c07c4ab1b43f6fe312817982", "input": "Review: Loved it but still have nightmares over the hotel manager.The movie, was presented well, with the choice of actors carrying their roles to reality of the writing. Many scenes gripped the imagination and created a nail biter. The progression of situations were cleverly written,making me believe the story was headed one way only to find a new twist on what I thought might be the obvious. Too bad there have to be commercials.I have told many friends to watch for further showings and I of course will view again.I enjoyed the scenery of the film and felt this added to the plots and intrigue. Husband and wife heated discussions(or should I say fights?) were very realistic.The initial situation is a common one but the escalation into the story presented fortunately is not.I want to thank all who were involved in this great entertainment film. Thank you! Looking forward to the next films---when? Whidbey Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47a555cc17ec47d793862bff0cbfa419", "input": "Review: I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecb3520d13cb46e8aa167e4e4b21160f", "input": "Review: Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to \"wish or hate away.\" As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2d014128db84761a539a3e49b42e7c5", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies where I wish I had just stayed in the bar.The film is quite frankly boring. What story there is is very flimsy and you pretty much have to guess at it. The film indulges itself with pretentious camera techniques that seem intent on causing migraines and makes it look like a student film. Did I say it was boring already? If all the characters had suddenly died at the end of the movie I would not have cared less as I had no emotional attachment to any of them.There are about 4 good minutes in this movie, but that was about it. This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of a cinema during a performance, but I held on believing that it had to get better. I was wrong.The sort of film you could threaten naughty children with. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8144ac1c8c054cb1aa538ee2aa880c87", "input": "Review: \"Witchery\" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of \"The Evil Dead\". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-139d968c9bfc4be49918130402712a98", "input": "Review: Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-80b5584c004146369438e96232d8b6b7", "input": "Review: This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that \"baiting the trap\"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said \"excuse me. I have to go kill someone\" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b066304866c483b80e1fc68f7fcae8c", "input": "Review: This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee535a34e49043c99ce336870046eee5", "input": "Review: My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a59c14b30ba4ca3810f24f0240422e6", "input": "Review: I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of \"Star Trek Voyager\", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of \"Deep Space Nine\" in 1999. prayers, answered. \"Enterprise\" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. \"Star Trek\" is back - \"Voyager,\" nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!> Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88413fc7bed846488f70ef448d170df5", "input": "Review: Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d59d85694bfa418497ba4782f062a594", "input": "Review: The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make \"Dirty Work\" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eaf7a2ce2a2a4b519e174ae0d00f8811", "input": "Review: I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. \"Panaghoy\" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the \"period\" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, \"Panaghoy\" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's \"Oro, Plata, Mata\", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's \"The Color Purple\" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of \"Noli Me Tangere\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47cfa16c739543fea184930bdbff3970", "input": "Review: Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1bc8e48dd9eb404fa867f95a15aed69f", "input": "Review: Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a6e75e653674fd69f0688b263db705e", "input": "Review: CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7090e8e9d5f41719a593eed7e864a19", "input": "Review: Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young \"adults\" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in \"Intruder,\" a creepy score by Christopher (\"Hellraiser\") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with \"The Power\" and \"The Kindred\"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ebd375b2a5243a48d507e27e905915d", "input": "Review: I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2826820d11447aa981a35696411c1d6", "input": "Review: This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!A masterpiece! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c871252ec2904af591e8f4b098433b9d", "input": "Review: Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's \"son\". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and \"robotic\" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41e62d2473c9429694eb2314117446ee", "input": "Review: Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8b6279885cd47ee9838f66cd1b009d2", "input": "Review: HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job. ---SPOILERS---Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a51f0eef0724d1fb0491538eee7bc84", "input": "Review: ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing. Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy – check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together. Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him. My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.All the actors represented their parts well. In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-346fcbe558764ec19e7c017cae625c87", "input": "Review: Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f81bde80fe134579ab6d5a78a329673f", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of \"The Sixth Sense\" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58d17998992b406cb4eda99a7682b146", "input": "Review: `Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aa8f83f9bf045e7a9533449b7ddf6d7", "input": "Review: The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0921aad3aba4a318e3452f3d8536e65", "input": "Review: As Most Off You Might off Seen Star Wars: Return Off The Jedi You May Knows Its A Good Movie But As You Might Have Seen On Video They M|might have a party At The end And They Just Probably End The Movie with the party with no a spirits or anything But on the original one (Live TV) When they are Partying But before i say more when Ben obi-wan dies in the Imperial Ship Or Death Star They Saw him Disappear And Yoda Dies From Either Old Age Or Internal Illness But because Luke killed Darth Vader (Real Name: Anakin Skywalker) When They All Are Partying At The end when Luke Or Someone Stops the Spirits Off Ben And Yoda Stands Starring At Him And Smiling While Another Spirit Appears Is its Darth Vader but not as A Sith As The Old Usual Selve off Him And Started Smiling with Ben And Yoda I reckon That made the movie ending a little bit interesting But the Producers or anyone should off made a spirit off Padme And Mace Windu And Other Jedis that got killed with Younglings Under There Arms in the back ground Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-564ab7e550f34dcba42967fd78a0cf14", "input": "Review: My kids recently started watching the reruns of this show - both the early episodes on the N, and the later ones on ABC Family - and they love it. (I wasn't aware the show had even lasted past the first or second season) I'm curious as to what prompted all of the cast changes - I've seen them described as \"highly publicized,\" and yet a half hours searching efforts on the web have revealed nothing but endless comments on how the early episodes were so much better than the later episodes. (Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference - the scripts and themes remain largely the same throughout - but they do lose some great people along the way) My daughter has put the DVDs on her wish list, so perhaps the land of special features and commentary will shed some light on all of this. I also wish they'd done some self-referential humor about the changes - like on \"Boy Meets World\" where they drop the little sister for an entire season or so, and when a different actor later shows up playing her, they ask her where she's been and she says \"upstairs,\" or when early series token geek \"Minkus\" shows up for the high school graduation, they ask him where he's been and he says \"over there,\" pointing to the part of the classroom never shown by the camera, before saying \"Hey, Mr. Turner, wait up!\" and running off screen (Mr. turner being another character who left) Oh well - maybe there will be an E true Hollywood story on this or something? I was just glad to see Aunt Hilda show up for the finale - she was always one of my favorites - it's too bad it couldn't have been a more encompassing cast reunion. (The Zelda candle just didn't cut it for me) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5aea729092354ba09ebbe9a0fe97ee5e", "input": "Review: The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-165b4e1b8a424790a4cba26367190613", "input": "Review: Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how \"mob rule\" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this \"Cry\" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5c6782925f945019bc36625fe1dcacb", "input": "Review: I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over \"glorify\" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting \"let's create an enduring image\" for my liking.The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the \"this war is wrong because people died and suffered\" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big \"twist\" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful \"wrong turn.\" JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f84ba3eab09471d858de419527d077a", "input": "Review: I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3903693edfe74439a7fa817d84ea16f5", "input": "Review: end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9cdfb0118d848b2815989c7a299668d", "input": "Review: While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-197527c360be4a28b7a599d3d4d4344c", "input": "Review: An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5274cb7743884cd2b8e133a1a83c3ca2", "input": "Review: i think the team behind this film did a very good job with the limitations they had. only £300,000 and 7 weeks to write, film and edit the whole thing which i think is an achievement in itself. although this film is not for the masses (as a young innocent teenage girl is killed and there is homo-eroticism involved in the story) i think that this film is a heart wrenching tragedy and the more deeply involved you get in the story, the more sadness you feel. more so towards Heaton because of the love he feels but is not returned.this is one of my favourite British films that i enjoyed very much and would watch again. i think that it's a shame that is film is not very well heard of at all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bcfb8c170d44a559af10589fe4c6746", "input": "Review: This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30826fb5b2bb41719f919c03ed2f79e4", "input": "Review: An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8320aaa74a684fefbc9974472694feb8", "input": "Review: I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. ... but the movie was confused and pointless ...it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. A serious waste of time.B Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1813f7c58776477b860fc67c43a985f3", "input": "Review: Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5493a0b9a6e340d2bf911baacfc755e1", "input": "Review: If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6985506115647329c3700fc4e7e24f2", "input": "Review: Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-081d04a9ace24850914408ca44e0ed31", "input": "Review: Undoubtedly one of the great John Ford's masterpieces, Young Mr. Lincoln went practically unnoticed at the time of its initial release, no wonder because the year was 1939 when many of the greatest movies of the whole cinema history had been released, including the most mythical Western in the history of the genre, John Ford's milestone Stagecoach and many others, such as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which took the Oscar in the only category Young Mr. Lincoln was nominated for, which is Original Screenplay. It continued to be the most underrated Ford's film for many years ahead destined to gradually fade away in the shadow of other John Ford's masterpieces, but by the end of the 1950s American and European film critics and historians took a hold of a note written by legendary Russian director Sergei Eisenstein about the Young Mr. Lincoln where he praised it and acknowledged that if he would only have had an opportunity to direct any American film ever made till then, it would be definitely John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. Impressed by such an undoubted preference from Eisenstein, critics began to see the film again but only with a bit different eyes and film's reputation has been increasing ever since. It was far not for the first time the life of one of the most legendary American presidents was brought to the screen. Right in the beginning of the 1930s Griffith did it in his Abraham Lincoln and the same year as Ford's film, MGM released John Cromwell's one called Abe Lincoln in Illinois. Curiously enough both of them were based on a very successful Broadway Stage Play released in 1938 and written by Robert Sherwood. As far as John Ford's films are concerned, we can easily find many references to the life and deeds and even death of mythical Lincoln's figure in several of director's works, such as 1924 The Iron Horse or 1936 The Prisoner of the Shark Island, the second one, just as Young Mr. Lincoln, utilizes as the main musical theme the favourite Lincoln's song - Dixie. The screenplay based on a previously mentioned Stage Play and Lincoln's biographies was written by Lamar Trotti in collaboration with John Ford himself, which was quite a rare thing for Ford to do but final result was simply superb - a script combining elements of the Play with several historical facts as well as myths and legends about the beginning of Abraham Lincoln's life and law practice culminating in a hilarious but mostly heartbreaking trial scene, which is the film's highest point and main laugh and tears generator, where Lincoln defends the two young brothers accused of a murder and have to devise a manner to help their mother too when she is brought before the court as a witness and where the prosecuting attorney (played by Donald Meek) demands her to indicate which one of her sons actually committed the murder obviously obliging her to the making of an impossible choice of condemning to death one and letting live the other. Overall it's a very touching, heart-warming and even funny film with simply magnificent performance from Henry Fonda in his supreme characterization of Abraham Lincoln and with overwhelming richness of other characters no matter how little or how big they are incarnated from the wonderful and intelligent screenplay and conducted by the ability of John Ford's genius at one of its best deliveries ever. A definite must see for everyone. 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4cf37094462416db343398abb8a63f9", "input": "Review: Full House came to me when I was about 9. I remember seeing re-runs of America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Saget, and one day my mom told me that he was also in a show called Full House. One day, I was lucky enough to catch an episode while visiting family. It didn't seem too interesting at first, but as I watched more and more, ever night at 9:00, I would just be so into it.This show really makes you want to be there yourself, hang out with the girls, go places with them, and maybe even join in their little family \"sing-alongs\".The thing I like most about Full House is that it's a great show for kids AND adults of all ages. There will be some parts that are more for adults, then parts that are meant for kids, so that the whole family will enjoy it. No matter how cheesy it can be, it's still a great show, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone.10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-18bdd34770b54ad2925bce511cc741ff", "input": "Review: Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba7dd160c9bd44dda26ee75679f81773", "input": "Review: I found about the movie \"Holes\" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. \"Holes\" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e50827a85f54c148815327adf1279a5", "input": "Review: ...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-261c945be069468c94aa64c438e24801", "input": "Review: Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his \"marvellous\" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?A beautiful fraternal love story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-833932a4216248379247f4d175a79eb1", "input": "Review: *** Spoilers*My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ac3854695894e24b3cc97f5a514ebfd", "input": "Review: This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72f8fa3be1f54a6cb9cdc64982190e68", "input": "Review: With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c879db5ccf74e649c7d14814fcb356c", "input": "Review: Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in \"The Lady Vanishes.\" She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62c4da833f3b446782ff9b56eddd2472", "input": "Review: Your average garden variety psychotic nutcase (deliciously essayed with unhinged glee by Stephen Sachs) knocks off various dim-witted young \"adults\" (to use the term very loosely) in Dayton Hall University, which is being closed down for demolition. Featuring dreadful acting by the entire cast (Daphne Zuniga makes her ignominious and inauspicious film debut here as Debbie, a bimbo who has her head crushed by a car!), a hefty corpse tally of 10, okay make-up f/x by Matthew Mungle, a few bloody murders (baseball bat bludgeoning, chicken wire strangulation, your standard drill through the head bit, that sort of gruesome thing), a downbeat surprise twist ending which was later copied in \"Intruder,\" a creepy score by Christopher (\"Hellraiser\") Young, a slight smidgen of gratuitous female nudity, and endearingly incompetent direction by Jeffrey Obrow and Steve Carpenter (who also blessed us with \"The Power\" and \"The Kindred\"), this entertainingly abysmal slice'n'dice atrocity sizes up as a good deal of delectably dopey and drecky low-grade fun. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c78f476884c44f289c1dc7203bcd3674", "input": "Review: So i consider myself pretty big into the anime scene, with very few shows i simply WILL NOT WATCH.this show, however, i would recommend to anyone.Quite possibly the most Original series to date, it;s got just about everything i could ask for. A side story, so to speak, about an unconditional love that will NOT be admitted to, a very blatant comedy, and a very well put together voice acting cast (both Japanese and American translation).If not for the terribly funny aspect to it, it would be, just another anime.More or less, as i have noticed, a 'love it or hate it', very few people i have seen introduced to this series will end up with a distaste for it.Original to the core, with everything you could ask for in an afternoon, bet the house on this series. I'm ready to ASSURE you that you will enjoy it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fe9f77567e745eea74f8db3125f3e13", "input": "Review: I've read a lot of comments about the film and how it's so hard for people to believe that it is a sequel to Henry Fool, and even though it technically is, I think that Fay Grim needs to be looked at as an entirely different film. Just because it is the sequel doesn't mean that it has to be a direct continuation of the first, and I enjoyed that so much about it. The whole point of the film was to change direction from the first, which makes sense because the movie isn't called Henry Fool 2, it's Fay Grim. All that aside, the film, I thought, was so well made and thought out that it actually surprised me. I was expecting to rent another nearly-released-straight-to-video film and have to endure 2 hours of bad editing and an almost hard to follow story-line (aka parker's last direct to video feature the Oh in Ohio) but this was so surprisingly well focused that it almost doesn't seem so, which I absolutely loved. There are so many nuances in the film making and writing that I crave to see in films, but never do. The cinematography was brilliant due to it's simplicity and truly making the film seem 'Grim' throughout - in terms of setting. The writing was so well put together as well, whoever said this movie isn't as witty as Henry Fool needs to watch again and actually listen; I almost can't even begin to explain how actually hilarious it was, and pertinent. And well, Parker Posey, who could complain? The scene in which Fool and Jalal were talking in the dark was so captivating and emotional. And I thought the spy-ness throughout the film was just so hilarious and spot on (in hindsight because i do agree that at times during you kind of felt lost). The main thing that struck me so powerfully about the film, and i believe the point of the film, was Parker's love and naivety about Fool, which was so endearing and turned, yes very quickly, from denial to outright passion. The last five minutes of the film were perfect. Obviously there were things that weren't excellent, but nothing is perfect; some of the acting was poor, and at times I did think that some of the new back story and dialogue about terrorism got a little hard to follow and out of hand, but in the end you got it and didn't even mind that at the time it may have slipped from your comprehension. (This may also have to do with Goldblum's tendency to talk extremely fast) On the whole I would say that it was probably one of the best films I've seen this year; stylistically pleasing, clever and witty writing, performances that were so impressive I now have gained new respect for some of the actors, and a truly touching film, and don't forget, a complete departure from Fool. Which was the point. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed30f90c9117425d88b066bc0ac95359", "input": "Review: So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do? I will tell you! Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary! (The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bca61fcec9c471988e8ea19e77a8a00", "input": "Review: I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28115ec7cb6b485eaf0b899bb4750f37", "input": "Review: All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee303ede52264b70aa2410179ba45a2b", "input": "Review: John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, \"Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it\" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the \"southern\" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of \"Faith\". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21b89228348548c2bb67ac2877778fd2", "input": "Review: This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c01ed883468543e282df3b75216f056e", "input": "Review: I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c50f0d2212db45b98645ac255f9d4bed", "input": "Review: Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the \"daughter\" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her \"dad\".That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent \"PokeMon; the First Movie\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44050b036de74e23a4677a79d0293d67", "input": "Review: I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdc3ebad5d7e4a9a87e97c32edfac124", "input": "Review: If the very thought of Arthur Askey twists your guts, don't worry, you can still watch and love The Ghost Train, like the equally marvellous Back Room Boy, it is a film that is simply too damn good to be sunk by a single performance, even that of the lead actor. Personally, I love Askey, perhaps it's because I go into his world, rather than unreasonably expecting him to come into mine, which is a mistake too many people make. The Ghost Train is so intensely atmospheric that you couldn't conceivably watch it without being amazed at the deep, dark world it transports you to, it is immersive in a way that few cheap and cheerful flag-wavers managed to be during the desperate early '40s and it's a film that I would imagine few people have ever watched just the once. The cast are, without exception, extraordinarily good, perhaps Linden Travers lays it on a bit thick, but against the backdrop of a lonely railway station in wartime, she could hardly play a nutter and not stand out. The sad passing of the lovely Carole Lynne earlier this year broke the last link we had with this incredible film and now it really is in the past, but waiting patiently for us to press play. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68a33639c1ed4282a8231966bc0fdb78", "input": "Review: Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move \"Nightmare on Elm St.\" by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5497342af0364665bf199db30ce7f4cc", "input": "Review: I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d66a970d8f8941249dabf21c51eea6c9", "input": "Review: Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d86818c934fa49078795a73b29fe868a", "input": "Review: I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving. 2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3864b3b41dc44732a4234028efa4d171", "input": "Review: Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de5e69010b0643e38c006891410e548d", "input": "Review: The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4eed0add80b4ce2940f6d4d54521547", "input": "Review: It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, \"Paris, je t'aime\" is breathtaking, showing that, as \"Love Actually\" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.With Feist on the background, \"Paris, je t'aime\" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a30c321601754ed5b9167f2e2dfd3091", "input": "Review: I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a548246c7da4c6aad84e88c046a1fa2", "input": "Review: You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, \"Matrix\"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.I was hoping for at least a \"so bad it's good\" zombie movie, but this one is \"so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fda9e4e7ce142148b0a90c8121bccd5", "input": "Review: Being the first feature film with Robert De Niro (although not released for years later), this is worth the watch. De Niro's role isn't huge, yet amusing as one of two friends who first try to prevent another friends marriage only to later chase him down to force him into it. Any die hard De Niro fan will get a kick out of an early performance by arguably the best actor today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b56aea9a6856407bb9c92ee3234232e5", "input": "Review: In Northeastern of Brazil, the father of the twelve years old illiterate Maria (Fernanda Carvalho) sells his daughter to the middle man of a prostitution organization, Tadeu (Chico Dias), to be employed as a housemaid and have a better life. However, the girl is resold to the farmer Lourenço (Otávio Augusto) that deflowers her, and he gives the abused girl to his teenager son to have his first sexual experience. Then she is sent to a brothel in a gold field in Amazonas and explored his owner, the despicable Saraiva (Antonio Calloni). When Maria escapes to Rio de Janeiro expecting a better life, she is explored by the cáften Vera (Darlene Glória).\"Anjos do Sol\" exposes the sad and shameful reality of child prostitution in Brazil through the fate of the girl Maria. Last year I saw \"Lilja 4-ever\" that tells an identical story in the former Soviet Union; therefore this problem does exist in Third World countries. Director and writer Rudi Lagemann presents a great movie exposing the reality but never showing nudity or explicit sexual scenes. It is the debut of the promising Fernanda Carvalho, who has an excellent performance in the role of a scared child fighting for survival. Most of the prostitutes are amateurs, and it is impossible to recognize the famous Darlene Glória so different she is after many plastic surgeries. The bitter and hopeless end of the story is also very realistic. My vote is ten.Title (Brazil): \"Anjos do Sol\" (\"Angels of the Sun\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12612cd90fd9472e8e135c08369f9c38", "input": "Review: \"The Return of Chandu\" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl. The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains. Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better. It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbdca2013d134f94814814e4b733db8a", "input": "Review: While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this \"TRUE\" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9c8a9ef65634ffe881855b63b73b42c", "input": "Review: A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-117fc23015a845948121c7853d41b677", "input": "Review: This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting \"comedy\" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96e354b6a1a346c78ed070df37ed6a01", "input": "Review: This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in \"Anamorph\" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of \"Anamorph\". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6a7828f2a6c4ba5908e6fc420c7d3fc", "input": "Review: I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-469e1a7768354b83b7bce5a5ea599d75", "input": "Review: \"Le Locataire\"(\"The Tenant\")is without a doubt one of the most important horror movies ever made.Polanski stars as a Trelkovsky,a timid file clerk living in Paris,who answers an advertisement for an apartment,only to find that the previous tenant attempted suicide by leaping from the apartment window.Trelkovsky is compelled to visit her in the hospital and there he meets Stella(Isabelle Adjani).Trelkovsky immediately moves in when the previous tenant dies and,at first,is quite pleased with having found such a nice apartment.His happiness is soon replaced by waves of paranoia as he becomes increasingly suspicious of his neighbours,who seem to be trying to provoke Trelkovsky into repeating the previous tenant's suicide.This film is great.Polanski manages to create a surreal atmosphere of dread and paranoia.Plenty of brilliant moments such as the classic scene where Trelkovsky discovers the previous tenant's tooth in a hole in the wall,or the fever dream where he wanders into the building's bathroom to find the walls covered with hieroglyphics.The photography by Sven Nykvist is truly beautiful.\"The Tenant\" is a neglected gem.It may be difficult to track down,but it is more than worth the effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a572ed5892544c983a4993c21e22d3f", "input": "Review: I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22c5d34d05d84a7b882a86e48c569bf5", "input": "Review: \"Gespenster\" Question of to be cool in the German cinemaThere are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film \"Gespenster\" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1d97397573146ddb35f24bdc245c724", "input": "Review: This is a comedy of morals, so occasionally a gentle touch of bitterness occurs, but a lightness soften all sarcasm and irony flows till all of a sudden one moment will halt your heart and changes everything.This film, marvelously written and directed, is a gem that shines perfectly, with beautiful acting by all. Jean-Louis Trintignant is exquisite as usual, and Romy Schneider is a pearl, perfect and glowing, that is not to be missed. A truly wonderful film !! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dfc5b8203e01496b93c913fcabcbaef4", "input": "Review: It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a544780bc884853b648f2adc53c7be8", "input": "Review: Finally, the uncut version of \"Baby Face\" surfaces and from what source? The Library of Congress. The restored four minutes, snippets here and there, make for a much better film. We now know that Baby Face was pimped by her old man from the time she was at least fourteen years of age. Another reason d'tat for her behavior and cold, calculating exterior.Barbara Stanwyck is indeed amazing in the role of Lily Powers (notice the moniker), a part that called for just the right amount of sexuality coated with power, cunning, and revenge, yet tinged with virginal pretense when called for, a very difficult portrayal to make convincing. Barbara Stanwyck conveys the necessary nuances to show that though she sleeps her way to the top (literally), she still has good in her heart--note the way she treats those few who have been kind to her such as Chico (the marvelous actress Theresa Harris) and the old philosopher. And though she exploits her sexuality to make mush of men who are rich and powerful, those same men are attempting to exploit her for their carnal desires with no intention of permanent ties until they fall in love with her.Lily Powers fails to understand, at first, that emotions are difficult to ride, that it's easy to lose control. One possible result is death. Hitching a wagon to a star of course materialism can take one to a destination where nothing else exists but the ephemeral, and it's a cold lonely location.A word should be said about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche whose will to power is stressed in \"Baby Face\" by the elderly philosopher who befriends Lilly when she is still turning tricks for her old man. \"Baby Face\" was released the same year Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Though it's highly unlikely that the semi-literate Hitler understood much about Nietzsche, he considered himself a Nietzschean to the nth degree and touted it along side his other rantings. \"Baby Face\" serves as an indictment of the popular interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power concept, especially in the final scenes.Although \"You've got the cutest little baby face.\" is apropos as a theme for \"Baby Face,\" an even more telling and applicable melody is W. C. Handy's \"St. Louis Blues\" played throughout the film, especially at times when the camera has to drift away from what would otherwise be sexually explicit scenes. \"St. Louis Blues\" is also used wisely toward the end as Lily begins to see beyond materialism to eternal values. Chico is singing a raw, salacious version of \"St. Louis Blues\" when Lily, now disagreeing with the lyrics, orders her to stop.The restored version of \"Baby Face\" makes the film more modern in its approach and attitude toward sex as power than many a new Hollywood release. By all means watch this gem from the distant past and enjoy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8a36c44d674467baa5f8fb722dab215", "input": "Review: An interesting animation about the fate of a giant tiger, a sloth, and a mammoth, who saved a baby, who was close to be killed by a group of tigers during the ice age. The morale of the film shows that good behavior with the others may bring benefits at the end. One of the tigers in the group got an order to finally capture the baby, who was hardly saved by his mother when the tigers attacked her community. The baby was then rescued by the sloth and the mammoth, but the tiger joined them with the objective of finally taken away the baby. They went through very troublesome paths with plenty of danger, and at once the tiger was to fall down and saved by the mammoth. At the end the group of tigers tried to capture the baby but the mammoth helped incredibly by his tiger colleague was able to overcome this attack and to give the baby back to his father and the community to which he belongs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66ef31ad30d44b7984f9c201e2a787a1", "input": "Review: I found about the movie \"Holes\" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. \"Holes\" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d5c55ca5c664923b70ed8384874cf52", "input": "Review: Final Score: 0 (out of 10)***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat. But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about \"Whipped\" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the \"star\" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or \"twist\", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the \"idea\" that an empowered women can play men \"just as they get played\". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent \"In the Company of Men\" - or better yet, \"There's Something About Mary\". This movie wants to be a \"edgier\" version of \"There's Something About Mary\" so bad you can see the sweat. The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as \"satirical\" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: \"F**k you\" Character 2: \"Oh yeah, well f**k you\" (repeat)And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. \"Whipped\" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at \"the marquee scene\", \"cult classic\" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides. But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like \"Friends\" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. \"Whipped\" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products. The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d01b9592c6849299da0cd610f5c1f6c", "input": "Review: My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. \"We're all powerful \"Gods\", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly.\" Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52deb28012d548c2b9b09a133fee7eec", "input": "Review: \"What the Bleep Do We Know!?\" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7145f4dd20e5430983fd914be26af16d", "input": "Review: This is the most confronting documentary I have ever seen. It was a simple and breathtaking view of a beautiful idea. Based on photographs of the hidden industrial landscapes centred around the modern industrial growth of China, Edward Burtynsky brings to life confronting issues that we so easily chose to ignore.Taking no political sides, this movie is a neutral moving picture of realities that our western societies chooses not to educate us about - the by-products of economical growth, the externalities paid by citizens of the lesser-developed communities, the source of our comforts and the wastes of our consumer lifestyles.Amazing, heart-breaking, impossible to ignore. This is a challenging journey but one worth taking - please stop staying ignorant and at least see these photographs of truth without feeling any pressure to take a standing to these issues. 10/10 definitely! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a672ac331b0446eb262b5859a62f6f9", "input": "Review: Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...***SPOILERS***Professional \"Slayer\" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these \"experimental pills\" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left......avoid this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e29ea214090745f59f48f95593b4985f", "input": "Review: \"Holly\" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d6f5e3cc04e4107bcb297e03feee7c7", "input": "Review: When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-731fac64c7394e15ad2aa926922f6c1b", "input": "Review: First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look \"real\" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for \"reality\" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream \"genius\" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.What a sad waste. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4c9dd31907a4800ab5c6a4d5705b166", "input": "Review: The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star \"decent\" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.This genre has been more successfully handled by \"Nobody's Fool\" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) \"About Schmidt.\" I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.I'll give it an \"A\" for effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af29101547364afaa316924dae343803", "input": "Review: The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : \" An experiment on a severed arm goes awry \" so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e38f1ea6d7cf4b03a2123fbaf99f90cc", "input": "Review: The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is \"discovered\" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1453b0eaa281443cb99a1f4b5293c302", "input": "Review: I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a \"good\" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the \"Time Machine\" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-431398ca17a746a8bed1bc6c459e8c27", "input": "Review: ... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, \"We get it, we get it!!!!!\" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c83e91402334c94865761fbb5fda587", "input": "Review: If you love cult 70's Sci-fi the way I do, or if you like movies such as \"Repo Man\" or \"Buckaroo Bonzai\" than you're going to love this one. It's a stream of consciousness 70's Sci-fi spectacular, including a 22nd century junkyard and the Earth a million years from now. This movie is pure 70's. Put on Steve Miller's \"Fly Like An Eagle\" or Pink Floyd's \"Dark Side Of The Moon\" and you're ready to go! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e3430e4cee7471bbbd5a7142f59bab8", "input": "Review: I really liked Tom Barman's AWTWB. You just have to let it come over you and enjoy it while it lasts, and don't expect anything. It's like sitting on a café-terrace with a beer, in the summer sun, and watching the people go by. It definitely won't keep you pondering afterwards, that's true, but that's not a prerequisite for a good film. It's just the experience during the movie that's great.I felt there were a few strands that could have been worked out a little more, but being a Lynch fan I don't care that much anymore :)And I *loved* the style, or flair of this movie. It's slick, but fresh, and the soundtrack is a beauty. Any music-lover will get his kicks out of AWTWB, I can assure you.I'll give it 8 out 10.(music-wise 10 out of 10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a05b04334a11481da3c2196899cf0d21", "input": "Review: The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make \"Dirty Work\" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-250d9c76980d4ef390004087c4de66f9", "input": "Review: I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: \"Hey, we can do that.\" For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says \"Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?\" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: \"Wow, that's incredibly cheesy.\" Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-146458d2a55c4aaeaee0b6df719164c6", "input": "Review: Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with \"Shaun Of The Dead\" in 2004, movie on to \"Hot Fuzz 2007\", early 2008 he came out with \"Run Fat Boy Run\" and now comes this, \"How To Lose Friends And Alienate People\" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy \"Paul\". I Rate this film 81%. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4441b2896dc49b8a5c699f2a9f9b7cb", "input": "Review: How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of \"funny notion\" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.The director/producer tried to go \"tear jerker\" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76b1a553723c40eea50be5ed33601f0b", "input": "Review: Robert Standish's novel is about a triangular romantic situation on a Ceylonese tea plantation... So the events of the Ceylon backgrounds and pictorial beauty are rewarding points to William Dieterle's film...The story is about a rich powerful planter (Peter Finch), who brings a charming and tender beauty (Elizabeth Taylor), into the jungle as his bride... The plantation, of course, is endangered by some kind of wild life... For this reason Taylor — elegant as never in dazzling costumes — finds herself in a strange atmosphere... The echo determination of a ghost, the bad temper of a husband obsessed by the memory of his autocratic father, a highly dangerous disease, and the fury of wild animals...In her confusion, boredom and annoyance Elizabeth Taylor looks to a friendly face, a pretentious foreman (Dana Andrews), who admires her beauty but tries to conquer her love...With echoes of \"Jane Eyre,\" the mysterious Yorkshire mansion with a brooding master, and \"Rebecca,\" the innocent young second wife hunted by the image of the glamorous first wife, \"Elephant Walk\" is a menace melodrama with a wide view of a huge tropical bungalow, exotic dances with rage excessively colorful, stampeding big bull elephants, amazing mansion set on fire, all in the company of an exquisite creature with an unquestioned beauty and talent...The movie gave Liz a change of scenery, and allowed her more creative energy and self-respect than most of her other willful debutante-rebels… The wife here has a sharp tongue and a strong will, and so Taylor plays her movie star heroine with more spirit than she was given credit for… Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4340b2d68c8f46b3bff7effe1d16c7d8", "input": "Review: Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76c24ba868794c41909a30a643d574af", "input": "Review: Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.'Should have' being the key term here, of course.Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, \"Good boy, Dex,\" just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick \"The Phantom,\" starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a481ade767ea49cd85a01dc31828e36c", "input": "Review: Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.Amateur in the extreme! Avoid! Avoid! Avoid! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-730b02209cce491c88679158eb98ade4", "input": "Review: (First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/\"Norwegian\" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -\"Da\" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called \"norwegian\" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the \"norwegian priests\"The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59e3c7b0fbb144239cb1f48d99215299", "input": "Review: Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel (\"The Usual Suspects\", \"Three Kings\") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of \"THE EVIL DEAD\" films and \"The Gift\", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2117bc7ac6cb4435a29847c060bf159c", "input": "Review: \"Tintin and I\" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-775b7bc6d5e846bfbbf5de410e0c383f", "input": "Review: I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than \"Love's Abiding Joy.\" The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d46a0ba586fc46a181728b666a1910ec", "input": "Review: I honestly have to say that I could not stop watching this movie from the second that it started. Simply for how bad it was!!! It's kinda like watching paint dry only a lot more confusing. I mean you sit there and just wait for something to happen, anything in fact, preferably something that makes the whole film make sense! At the end of the film I actually sat there wondering if there was any chance at all that I may have missed the first hour that explained everything or whether I may have inadvertently passed out during the film and missed the parts that glued the plot(if there was in fact one)together! The main thing that really confused me about this movie, is nearly at the end the main girl (if there was indeed a main girl) was in some sort of alternate reality, i mean what the hell was going on at this point?! all of a sudden she awoke and was in a mental institute, chained to a bed being drugged by doctors or something, then quicker than it would have taken me to slit my wrists, it flipped back and she was getting eaten out by some random vampire!it made no sodding sense! I'm tempted to email the makers and demand my time back, i mean i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this rubbish!i am kinda interested to know if the filmmakers themselves actually knew what it was all about! just seemed someone had edited out all the bits that could have made it make sense though i think the film would have had to have been 4hrs long to make that happen! I side completely with the other person who wrote the other review, i was duped royally with this film by its title, and that alone. I'm just so sodding grateful i didn't actually buy the film, no matter how many times iv seen it in the local pound shop. You would have thought that would have given me a clue that the film was a complete pile of steaming movie rubbish but to be honest I think £1 was way too much money to spend on this film!!!! what a sodding huge waste of time and a good razor blade, i mean i wish i OD'ed, its less painful than watching this film!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d25407138ea449d8e3a43823b103e2d", "input": "Review: This movie is gorgeous. It's real and down to heart, but at the same time totally crazy. The characters are easy to fall in love with, because they have so many different minds, but each of us could refer to at least on. In Canada, we don't have many movies from Eastern Europe, and for the few I have seen, Loners is one of the best. It's very funny, and magic. If you want to see something new and refreshing, go see Loners. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-853aa94f6a8f467db2fc1a6e82f6c2bf", "input": "Review: Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e2fd46adab145fb94c210ba38b74bf3", "input": "Review: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e2bca33af6e4cf1b9a817baaf767a50", "input": "Review: Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the \"end of innocence\" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend \"Ratzo\" dreams of living in.But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting \"Midnight Cowboy\" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef60623677bb4840b132d07655b3fd17", "input": "Review: What can I say that hasn't been said about \"The Haunting\"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c4b14f9120b47249cc362427f98ba09", "input": "Review: Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dddf15d495c547d4bd9bc1616dcb083e", "input": "Review: (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus…an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales…Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'… We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. The four stories – chapters if you will – in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original…but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and – even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new – this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film…her cleavage in particular. No doubt about it…The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not…repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d165562b59c4e719174e25a2d7dfd03", "input": "Review: This is really a great unknown movie.Perfect dialogue without the typical clichés.This movie relied on the actor's talent and it was pulled off.It even had a little bit a comedy in it,but it wasn't overdone.Once in the Life is what a crime drama is supposed to be,not the typical special affects garbage with sex thrown in.I especially loved the interracial aspects of it all.Now onto the actors themselves. Laurence Fishburne was superb at playing a career petty criminal.It's a shame that he's only allowed to show his talent in his own movie. Titus Welliver was fabulous as Fishburne's junky half-brother. Eamonn Walker added flavor to the already perfectly spiced film. Paul Calderon was perfect as a grease monkey/drug lord.I loved his acting since \"King of New York\". But the best acting in this film came from Gregory Hines and Michael Paul Chan,who were paired perfectly as two of Calderon's henchmen.Once in the Life is for sure a keeper. ****1/2* out of *****. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c17019fbea384d05bfa02563082b7586", "input": "Review: Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-faad5bd8517a45429cf08a73f4e0b845", "input": "Review: A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.Around 7 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-502bd9ad43e148568f0b63b543ae371e", "input": "Review: If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is \"baby face\". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99d008c4e35d4c16aed0054baabbf49a", "input": "Review: Hardcastle and McCormick is an excellent TV show. Yes, it is predictable much like The Dukes of Hazzard, Hunter, The A-Team, etc etc etc.This show is just good clean television. The relationship between Hardcastle and McCormick is quite amusing. They often take jabs at each other several times an episode, which adds a great deal of humor to the show. It contains several car chases in almost every episode, but, who doesn't enjoy a good car chase? Especially with the Coyote! I only wish they made clean television like this today I highly recommend this! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7b841fd1bf648309bb9bc3925f4acec", "input": "Review: I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2be6b7e0030c4091bad4962f52587cfb", "input": "Review: I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-da2f45a70d0543508228d1bf30e941e2", "input": "Review: I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving \"funny\" moments in the beginning.But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.{SPOILER}Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a09b09bd6b944e2a2cf78d7a86ad3eb", "input": "Review: I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1d4f497dc5948b7a6f2cb5d9a587502", "input": "Review: Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ad14100b0e145f79400ff0526464c99", "input": "Review: Based on an actual mining disaster, this early German talkie (with English subtitles) still remains one of the most effective docu-dramas ever filmed. Featuring many non-professional actors, \"Kameradschaft\" gives a chilling view of the friendship that binds the mine workers, regardless of which side of the French/German border they may be from. A deadly accident brings out the very best in everyone, nullifying any superiors' orders. A fellow miner in need will receive the help of his comrades, even at threat of great loss, including life.This film reminds of the self-sacrificing heroism shown by the NYFD following the 9/11 attacks. Putting aside any formal rules and regulations, these men and women in uniform knew only one cause: to save lives, and to find their fellow-fire fighters. -- More than 70 years later, \"Kameradschaft\" still has the strong and timeless message: A friend in need is a friend in deed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1210c02ed5bc4619ae27f9c8b25b7473", "input": "Review: Netflix should mention this short feature on the info for Silk Stockings. Superior in every way to that over-produced fluff. This had much better Cole Porter songs and lots more energy. Silk Stockings turned out to be a big disappointment. Fred was getting too old for this sort of thing, though the dances and Cyd are lovely. I will be on the watch for the Garbo--Melvyn Douglas version of Ninotchka. Was Peter Lorre ill during the making of Silk Stockings--he seems to be very passive in the more active numbers and with less lines? Very glad that I ran across Paree--Paree by pure accident. Made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Bob Hope, as a simple \"song and dance man' is pure joy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02a030cf51be4e4d949c1e801582c91e", "input": "Review: I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.Buy it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fd70dd6606449d782172a04a143b38f", "input": "Review: At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, \"Apart From That\" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, \"Apart From That\" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.This movie must be seen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd72be84ba3a478e86f1d1ee7a361779", "input": "Review: 'Before the devil knows you're dead' is one of the best movies I've seen in along time. The acting fromthe excellent ensemble cast is incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman putting in an outstanding performance and is electrifying every time he's on screen. Ethan Hawke matches him scene for scene and Albert Finney simply chews up the screen. Marisa Tomei is, however,criminally underused, but looks amazing for her 42 years. The script is excellent, the story-line non-linear but easy enough to follow. Sidney Lumet, although not known for his blockbusters, has turned out a gem with this one! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-837d81ed45c5403188d0cc78ea7868a9", "input": "Review: Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c07ab6bb8d6b4afca57b76b0c4a7720f", "input": "Review: Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f154f2fa4b6742339eeb2e5fc496a2ba", "input": "Review: There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking \"that's it?\". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c59e3f58e5424ff7b0d153de5f6065f3", "input": "Review: This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties. But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to \"Shaaadaaaap\" after the poisoned cake incident\"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d03c581d85ea4fb8a858c9d59b4920a5", "input": "Review: I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those \"festival films\" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it \"different\", therefore good.Bad film-making is not \"different\", it's just bad film-making. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5cfef3239b64bee92c218b778596c34", "input": "Review: I enjoyed this movie,and after watching it,it made me wonder just how many 'Caitlin Rose's' exist in the world.How many other girls have been subjected to this sort of sexual abuse,and torment by classmates and have been too frightened to open their mouth about it? Just how threatening and cruel can teenagers be towards one another,because as this film demonstrates,who's right is not foremost important,its who is popular,and feared which manipulates the minds of youths,and influences them to allow this sort of immorality to happen.Tiffani Amber Thiessen gives a powerful performance as the rape victim,and Brian Austin Green is convincing as the guy torn between the girl he thought he loved,and his best friend.This is the kind of film that doesn't get the exposure it deserves.Remarkable,and brilliant,too good to be just a film made for TV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1eb9fa9e395a42a69113fa1c0276952f", "input": "Review: Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman \"Brass Balls\" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival \"Wacky\" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on \"My Way\" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a5a9d0ef65f47a0a114ba7c4b81360a", "input": "Review: We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c04c275fba8c4e14b44b4d10a0a4634e", "input": "Review: Saw this movie on its release and have treasured it since. What a wonderful group of actors (I always find the casting one of the most interesting aspects of a film). Really enjoyed seeing dramatic actress Jacqueline Bisset in this role and Wallace Shawn is always a hoot. The script is smart, sly and tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at almost everything \"Beverley Hills\". Loved Paul Bartel's \"doctor\" and Ray Sharkey's manservant. This was raunchy and crude, but thank god! Unless you're a prude, I heartily recommend this movie. FYI for anyone who likes to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Mary Woronov & Paul Bartel were in \"Rock & Roll High School\". Mary Woronov and Robert Beltran were in \"Night of the Comet\" together. They were all three in \"Eating Raoul\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22f8ef04094b4f6ea3956b832fafb8cb", "input": "Review: This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or \"normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5eba646ee5e4619bd22540c33109676", "input": "Review: I work with children from 0 – 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day\" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce5c5c43327a471783eb25603cf026b1", "input": "Review: To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see \"Troy\" If you liked epics in the \"Jupiter's Darling\" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71611833bfcc4fbab6c4a7f01c466ffc", "input": "Review: With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30e6d3bbd6db49748f42bbc6a637ca28", "input": "Review: I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6553e82fbcd347718efb85e55587d029", "input": "Review: A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in \"Severed Ties\" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-970e461e9bd54866b5eb60728d375b21", "input": "Review: Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-439d31b9913c4caa89f711bbf9a9fc1d", "input": "Review: Any movie with \"National Lampoon\" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience.\"National Lampoon's European Vacation\" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible \"comic\" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd35f6a7c1ce4f30a86667f91af59ce2", "input": "Review: This is a story about Shin-ae, who moves to Milyang from Seoul with her young son Jun to start over after the accidental death of her husband. Her husband was born here, and she is opening up a piano school, but also has ambitions to own some land with the insurance money she received from the death. If that is what the film was about, it probably would have been like a Hollywood film, with her falling for some local guy and being happy with her son in their new home. But, this is not Hollywood. Her son gets kidnapped and murdered, ostensibly because it is known she has cash from the settlement. The grief process, attempts at moving on, attempts to clear her conscience of guilt, are all done admirably, and the lead actress is superb. The only caveat, and it has to be stated, is that this is a depressing film. You have to know that going in. You want Shin-ae to go through her grief and find some measure of happiness. Again, this is not Hollywood, it is Korea and in Korean cinema, especially drama, they pull no punches. Life is what happens to you. Great acting, but sometimes a tough film to watch, due to the goings on. If you stay, you'll be rewarded. Do that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-571d52bb2f244e548f75d2284855513b", "input": "Review: Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in \"Down To Earth.\" As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of \"American Pie\" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy \"Heaven Can Wait,\" itself a rehash of 1941's \"Here Comes Mr. Jordan,\" lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in \"Lethal Weapon 4,\" \"Dogma,\" or \"Nurse Betty\" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, \"Down To Earth\" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.\"Down to Earth\" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face \"American Pie.\" This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent cast—among them \"The Full Monty's\" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This,\" \"SCTV's\" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.—are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, \"Down To Earth\" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of \"Hannibal\") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of \"Jerry Maguire\"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of \"Stay Tuned\"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This\"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of \"American Pie\") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of \"Sweet November\") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.\"Down To Earth\" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of \"Heaven Can Wait.\" The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of \"Heaven Can Wait\" based on his philosophy to \"Do Something you can only do when you're hot.\" Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in \"Down to Earth,\" Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with \"Down to Earth\" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of \"Down to Earth\" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14aae8265e5b4aa5be5a29b96cfa7904", "input": "Review: I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e61f5b6e23824f59a02f4111c7e9d6f5", "input": "Review: The whole point of making this film, one of the earliest and best international color releases of cinematic opera, was to make it more accessible to the masses. And it succeeded admirably in doing so. The general public would not sit still for a love story about two young exotic lovers in ancient Egypt if played by the typical 300 pound over 40 tenor and soprano with the vocal equipment to sing the glorious music properly. Hence the visual substitution of the beautiful principals (a young Loren, handsome Della Marra, and a slinky Ms. Maxwell)who make the story much more believable, giving those not familiar with the plot or the music a better chance at being wooed into the lovely arias who otherwise might not be. Altogether, an enchanting introduction to one of Verdi's great works. I remember seeing this when I was in junior high school and it certainly awakened my interest in opera, a form with which I was then not well acquainted. I still regard this film fondly and would recommend it highly to those who might appreciate the great music accompanied by better than average visuals. Luciano Della Marra was a standout as Radames, and unfortunately for audiences did not appear in any other films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23e16b82da4c41b88e8b2cb190b41d86", "input": "Review: That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a \"HELP THE POOR\" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-007c41b658ab457cb0fac00a079a7cc9", "input": "Review: If you love cult 70's Sci-fi the way I do, or if you like movies such as \"Repo Man\" or \"Buckaroo Bonzai\" than you're going to love this one. It's a stream of consciousness 70's Sci-fi spectacular, including a 22nd century junkyard and the Earth a million years from now. This movie is pure 70's. Put on Steve Miller's \"Fly Like An Eagle\" or Pink Floyd's \"Dark Side Of The Moon\" and you're ready to go! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5485ffb0fdc411aab5dfdbc37d87d72", "input": "Review: Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2cc60b2f7854dbda10b90ff002d73d5", "input": "Review: A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f302d049e314514a3dda47dfc5e21ea", "input": "Review: It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9b9327a5965405297e93f22ea608e27", "input": "Review: A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, \"The Dealers\" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e22cd64662604ec7a9d2e718b5453a3a", "input": "Review: Legendary movie producer Walt Disney brought three of the world's greatest fairy tales to the screen. They remain among the most popular animated films of all time. The first was his groundbreaking classic \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" released in 1937. The last was the then-under appreciated \"Sleeping Beauty\" which made it's debut in 1959. In between these two was perhaps his most satisfying adaptation of a classic fairy tale: \"Cinderella\" (1950). Of the three films, \"Cinderella\" is the one most faithful to its origins. Ironically, unlike \"Snow White\", which for better or worse, became for many the definitive version of the story. \"Cinderella\" did not follow the same path. Although it was a hit and, like \"Snow White\", was responsible for restoring the dwindling Disney fortunes, it never achieved the same audience recognition which it certainly deserved. Disney, for once, did himself proud, electing not to tamper with a classic, instead elaborating and adding substance to the tale, rather than rewriting it for the screen. The result was enchanting. A combination of superb animation (in beautifully soft Technicolor) and the perfect voice talents brought the story to life with a radiance that endures to this day. Ilene Woods, who was a radio performer, recorded demonstration discs of the songs as a favor to the authors of the material, Al Hoffman, Mack David, and Jerry Livingston. When Disney heard them, he knew he had found his Cinderella. And indeed he had. Woods heartfelt renditions of \"A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes\", \"So This Is Love\" and \"Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale\" are perfect. Eleanor Audley, who would go on to voice Maleficent in \"Sleeping Beauty\", masterfully captured the icy cruelty of the stepmother, while Rhoda Williams and Lucille Bliss were convincingly nasty stepsisters. Luis Van Rooten admirably performed as both the King and the Grand Duke, and James Macdonald was endearing as both Jaq and Gus, Cinderella's devoted mice. William Phipps has little dialog as the prince (future talk show host Mike Douglas provided his singing voice) but film (and Disney) veteran, Verna Felton was born to play the fairy godmother, and she made the best number, (the Oscar-nominated \"Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo\") her own show-stopper. Among the artists responsible for the \"look\" of the film, was Mary Blair, whose inspired use of color was greatly admired by Disney. Her elegant French-period backgrounds add tremendously to the quality of the movie. But, most important of all' are the believable characters--from Cinderella, right down to Lucifer, the stepmother's deliciously evil cat. They bring both life and vibrancy to the often told story, something very difficult to create in an animated film.In conjunction with the film's 55-year anniversary, (and, not so coincidentally, the coming holiday season) \"Cinderella\" has just been released on a special edition DVD. It simply has never looked better. The fully restored film must be seen to be appreciated--suffice it to say, it looks wonderful. An enhanced stereo soundtrack has been added, and serves the music well. The DVD extras, now a standard part of Disney Platinum Editions, are too numerous to list here, but as usual, some are directed towards children, some are slanted to adults, and the rest fall somewhere in between. But real fans will want to get the Deluxe Gift Set, because, along with an actual cell from the film and eight character sketches, it includes a 160-page hardback book, which not only incorporates most of the material found in the book with the 1995 special edition home video release, but much more as well. As usual for Disney, \"Cinderella\" will only be available for a limited time. So, if like me, you are a \"Cinderella\" lover, get it NOW! This edition is truly a \"Dream Come True.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7540de37e88471e8f41d3e0b54d1998", "input": "Review: this movie, i won't call it a \"film,\" was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.but let's have something with a bit more substance.loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.but one cameo after another gets old fast.i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the \"greatest generation,\" as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22d7b37d088943f6b2b4af983c793730", "input": "Review: Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more. I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3a706ea029248b5a7a64056fc8bca8f", "input": "Review: This movie has made me want to become a director, and Michelle Rodriguez is brilliant. How the hell wasn't she on mtv's top 25 under 25, she beats them all. This film definitely deserved the grand jury prize at sundance, best film i have ever seen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59ce4b83ae564345bef909a432562abb", "input": "Review: Why a good actress like Elizabeth Berkley stars in this commonplace movie???!!! The cast gives some good performance (Elizabeth Berkley as a Barbie girl, Ele Keats as a girl without mother and Justin Whalin, a guy eternally lessened by his bother), but the direction is extremely boring and the story is NOT so interesting and original. I can NOT believe that a movie like this was produced for the big screen! Julie Corman (the producer): are you CRAZY???!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6b5c658a73c42ea8ddf3397fd4be4a0", "input": "Review: Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-373eabcda1f54559a81fac8ce0c3308e", "input": "Review: My boyfriend and I both enjoyed this film very much. The viewer is swept away from modern life into old Japan, while at the same time exposed to very current themes. The characters are realistic and detailed; it has an unpredictable ending and story, which is very refreshing. The story is made up of mini-plots within the life of several geisha living together in a poor city district. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a realistic romance or life in old Japan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62a5ff3a22b541948d81e2dc7a8bf4ad", "input": "Review: Since I watched it for the first time, \"Piedras\" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director. Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.\"Piedras\" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c26363f0b2e491ab29821aeb92a4127", "input": "Review: A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0009653f029648379d5320f915f4defd", "input": "Review: I read a small ad in some horror magazine in the early nineties about Liebe des Totes (the love of the dead) or something similar. This of course awoke my curiosity so I ordered Nekromantik 1 & 2 and Der Todesking (The Death King). The Nekromantik movies are Ok, even kind of interesting and unique in their approach to the subject Necrophilia (even if they obviously are horror-opera entries rather than intended to invoke fear in the viewers mind, they are actually quite funny.)TODESKING, on the other hand is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It consist of a series of scenes depicting the many facets of death. Death as an enemy; Death as a reliever, Death as the very fysical decomposition of the body. The film is a metaphor over life. It shows how fragile life is and how short our lives are. It reduces its viewers to the childs they (we) actually are. The fact that we cannot really understand the nature of Death, and hence neither the process of dying, is the core message of the film. This is a most realistic film. Never does Buttgereit try to hide death behind white roses or whatever. No matter what moral standards you set up, death is unevitable, and will sooner or later be not a fiction but YOUR reality. This applies to YOU, Dear Reader, like it applies to the viewers of the film. Some juvenile reviewers seem not to grasp this, which is fully excused, since they of course will live forever...This is no exploitation movie. Why? Because death does not exploit us humans. It harvests us. We grow for seven days, then we are brought back to the schopenhauerian state of pre-birth, that is Death. Buttgereit gives us his version of the oldest of tales. Whether you choose to regard it as \"optimistic\" or \"pessimistic\" is up to you. At first glance it may seem very dark. Consider though, that in order for something to live, something else must die. \"Who wants to live forever?\"I believe that when Buttgereit shows a body, that are being consumed by maggots, he shows not only decomposition, but GENERATION of new life. Is it not better to die and give life to maggots and then birds and eventually become soil, than to remain the living dead zombie that is one of the the favorite pets of the genre?When you realize this, you see Der Todesking it its right context.Sieben Tage hat die Woche, siebenmal letzte Stunden. Seven are the days of week (weak, mortal !), seven times the last hour.Dont fear the Reaper, Buttgereit tells us, because the Reaper takes only what is ripe. And apples that are not plucked for food will rot!Have a good life, fellow IMDB'ers !(And watch this film, that compares only to Ingemar Bergmans \"The Seventh Seal\" in terms of depth and universality) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bff164e5f9dd44c483fbb980e2387708", "input": "Review: One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s. This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01487ba7907f4e99842c5b82d66f835a", "input": "Review: This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by \"ground-breaking\" and \"original\" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the \"Bill Cosby Show\" or \"Hill Street Blues\" it's original. Definitely. Next to \"Law & Order\" TP spews originality left and right.Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed \"weirdness\", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...Whenever I watch the \"weird dream\" sequence in \"Living In Oblivion\" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? \"Eraserhead\" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch \"The Prisoner\". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for \"unique faces\" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced \"hunks\" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a \"weird show with weird-looking people\". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable \"eccentricities\" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-\"Elephant Man\" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this \"great mind\" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story. Check out my \"TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism\" list. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5ad87a90bed42b1a4558d7b2880ebc7", "input": "Review: I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie .... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a4427673ed1451e9472e80304ebf7f6", "input": "Review: Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-114bbbfb7fc44d788a8235acbdb83106", "input": "Review: ...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.Just fantastic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-083fc366136045efb7b6cdc21847d974", "input": "Review: I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c5f33d9bbbc4cdf8da797fe2fd8157c", "input": "Review: Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bef65f882fd542749fed279ba6ce12fd", "input": "Review: This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of \"southern\" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4edb389057b44a2b8bd1fc72bca6dfbf", "input": "Review: I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's \"walk on Moon\". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-034545b415a3488bbe1bf7a186357d99", "input": "Review: I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eadd3c3cbdfd42c29001c5632937c83f", "input": "Review: This is what makes me proud to be British. This is by far the funniest thing on TV. The league consists of Jeremy dyson, Steve pemberton, mark gatiss and the lovely Reece shearsmith. Totally underrated, this horror-comedy is perfection. The characters are iconic and the catchphrases bizarre, \"Hello Dave\". It is a comedy that everyone simply must watch.The best thing about the league of gentlemen is that it is always fresh, and always pushing the boundaries. It does not need to rely on catchphrases(unlike little Britain) for it to be funny. the fact that the league are willing to kill off arguably their most famous and iconic characters, shows us that they've got balls of steel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e9ce26342b04ac1a4eb1a295764aaae", "input": "Review: Walt Disney & his 9 Old Men put their own 1950 spin on the classic fairy tale of Cinderella, which I guess you could say helps form an unofficial \"fairy tale princess trilogy\" from the classic Disney years.THE PLOT: Cinderella is a nice girl who can't catch a break. She is the daughter of a nice, wealthy widower who loved her dearly, but her mother passed away when Cinderella was very young, and Cindy's father felt she needed a mother figure, so he eventually married the woman who would become known as Lady Tremaine, herself a widow with two daughters about the same age as Cinderella, Anastasia and Drizella. At first they all seemed to get along, but then Cinderella's father died, and Lady Tremaine's true nature was revealed - she was a cold, cruel, callous, heartless, mean spirited woman, and she passed those traits on to her daughters, who were spoiled, bratty, and equally mean spirited. Anastasia & Drizella hate Cinderella because they know deep down that she's better looking and an overall nicer, more attractive lady than themselves (i.e., more appealing to men), and their mother, Lady Tremaine, hates Cindy for pretty much the same reasons. As the years passed Lady Tremaine began to squander the family fortunes in a stubborn but futile quest to improve/refine her awkward, unattractive daughters (to call them \"homely\" would be an insult to homely people everywhere) while all three relegated Cinderella to being the multi-tasking servant of the house, abusing her, mistreating her and humiliating her every chance they get (they are particularly fond of increasing her already absurd workload). That brings us to Cinderella in the present, where she has blossomed into a good looking young lady who somehow manages to remain kind hearted and nice despite her abusive step family and holds on to the hope that one day the tables will turn in her favor. Cinderella gets her shot at freedom & happiness when a royal ball is held to introduce the local prince to an eligible young maiden so that he can take her as a wife, settle down, start a family, etc. Naturally, her step family tries to keep her from attending, even going so far as to physically assault her and rip up the dress she had procured for herself (with a little help from her mice friends - the dress belonged to her biological mother). Finally pushed beyond her breaking point, Cinderella runs out into the courtyard and cries in despair. It is at that point that her Fairy Godmother, a short, plump, jolly woman, arrives and provides Cinderella with transportation and a transformed dress (after all, Cinderella wouldn't make a very good impression at the ball if she entered the scene looking like she had just gotten gang raped). Cindy arrives at the ball, the Prince falls hard for her, but that pesky midnight rule gets in the way, forcing her to flee, but leaving behind a glass slipper. Make a long story short - after a long harrowing quest to find the mystery girl via trying on the glass slipper, Cinderella is found and she and the prince get married, giving her the happy ending she deserves.Overall, an enjoyable Disney classic. Not without its flaws, the most glaring of which is that the Prince is little more than a MacGuffin to help push the plot along - he has very little screen time and even less dialogue, so we never get to know him very well or get a good look at his relationship with Cinderella (which is unfortunate since, according to the making of documentary, the Prince was originally meant to play a bigger role), and a few additional scenes to help flesh out Cinderella herself might have been helpful (there was a song that showed her fantasizing of turning into an army of maids to clean up the house as well as eavesdropping on her step-family post ball to show her amusement at their jealousy, which was cut because Walt himself thought it made her look spiteful). Still, Cinderella herself is a likable enough heroine, even if she is upstaged by her mice friends, and there's a sweetness to the film that is becoming harder to find these days. Of course, if this were being made now, Cinderella would probably put up more of a struggle against her family during the dress ripping scene and would probably free herself in the climax (either by picking the lock herself or making an impractical yet exciting jump down from her window) but this is beside the point.And for all those who say Cinderella sets a bad example for young girls, well, consider this - at least Cinderella didn't go around getting publicly drunk and indecently exposed, unlike some modern day \"princesses\" (you know who I mean). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a403ad25cef6406799927977504e24f5", "input": "Review: The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cd85fb61195419e88eb40dea07b70d7", "input": "Review: A typical romp through Cheech and Chong's reality which includes drugs, singing, more drugs, cars and driving, even more drugs, Pee Wee, aliens, gasoline, laundry, stand up comedy, surprisingly more drugs and SPACE COKE !!. It is not as coherent or plausible as Up in Smoke but it still is incredibly funny, without becoming as strange as Nice Dreams. There are some classic scenes, which include the opening scene where they get some gas for their car and the drive to work. Also funny is Cheech's song (Mexican-Americans) and Chong's follow up song. Another notable scene is the welfare office scene with Jones (human noise machine), from the Police Academy series, and the old laughing man. All in all, this is a great follow up to Up in Smoke and is quite watchable when sober or not.-Celluloid Rehab Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a903e5a88e01407e863184f3adba19dc", "input": "Review: Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found \"Life Stinks\" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2de0846dc51e4510a6552cacb1189ca4", "input": "Review: This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The \"sisters\" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92e999522c2546268cba711d92945f82", "input": "Review: There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af6612839a144d099d93455f7308726c", "input": "Review: If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0f5bbbb9a92461aa460571b3ba76d5f", "input": "Review: I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie \"Moonraker\" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.As a cross between \"Pi\", \"Orlando\", and \"Tron\", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in \"Tron.\" Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac25895feea947e28dd8da84cfaef866", "input": "Review: Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.I live exactly where they filmed this movie \"san pedro, California\" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach \"Queen Mary\" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.and the mind is a powerful thing.i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.Ty.Victor Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd3d38b6abb74705a2670bc441f32d36", "input": "Review: An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e95f7127916455c9a3f3aae56c0f076", "input": "Review: This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ed1b5f70b4a43f59a3df0bd1aaff887", "input": "Review: Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the \"untold story\", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb3c30ba75bc4530ba7a46a83ba4cbc0", "input": "Review: I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-719a52a379ef46189e4a006859baf925", "input": "Review: This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of \"all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all\" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word \"Thalassa\" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood. Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc66c6a387434228810b19188fca5df9", "input": "Review: Let us begin by saying that this film's English title \"The Power of Kangwon Province\" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,\"Kangwon-do ui him\" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45ca53ed466b41b09fc18841288d501f", "input": "Review: I approach films about talking animals with care. For every wonderful one like Babe, you get an equally poor one like the dreadful remake of Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. Or in the case of Cats & Dogs, you have a great idea for a film not living up to its potential. When I heard about Paulie, the premise of a wisecracking parrot didn't exactly fill me with confidence. But I found the film a pleasant surprise. And it manages to sneak its way into your heart without you realising.A Russian janitor, Misha Vilyenkov (Tony Shaloub) gets a job in a research laboratory. One day, he hears singing coming from the basement. And when he investigates, he finds a parrot in its cage singing its little heart out. Misha becomes fascinated with the bird, especially when it turns out the parrot can not only sing, it can talk. And not a few phrases either. Its a parrot you can actually make conversation with.The parrot is called Paulie (voiced by Jay Mohr), and recognises a fellow castaway in Misha. Wondering how this world to the wise bird ended up in a dusty basement, Misha convinces Paulie to tell him his life story. Which all began when he was a baby, and in the care of Marie, a five year old girl with a stutter. The two of them became birds of a feather (OK, bad pun!).When Marie's parents became concerned about her close friendship with a bird, they considered sending him away. And they finally did after Marie nearly injured herself in a fall after teaching Paulie to fly. Desperate to be reunited with her, Paulie begins a long journey across America, which includes a diverse number of new owners, flying great distances, and even ending up behind bars. Of a cage that is!Paulie was one of a number of talking animal films released by DreamWorks in the late 90s. And although it wasn't afforded the same recognition or box-office success of Babe, Paulie succeeds on quite a few levels, and is an occasional work of striking intelligence.Jay Mohr's stand-up style of acting is well suited to the part of Paulie. He never plays the part as too smug, even if he is a bit of a smart Aleck. Paulie's worldly, but he is also naive in his way.Because he's lived a rather sheltered life with Marie, when he's taken away, he has to fend for himself for the first time. And when he falls into the hands of different owners, they make promises to Paulie to reunite him with Marie, which he believes. Only for those promises to be broken time and again.Paulie is admittedly a little episodic. It follows the eclectic people Paulie ends up with, and how he slowly gets brought closer and closer to Marie. He first winds up in a pawn shop, where he is adopted by Ivy (Gena Rowlands), a kindly woman who teaches him the meaning of manners. She sympathises with Paulie's situation, and drives an RV across America to find Marie.Paulie is an occasionally very touching film. His scenes with Ivy are some of the best. Wonderful moments of Paulie perched on her shoulder singing Tom Jones numbers. The way she instills in him the need for hope is great, and some of the dialogue is quite well written and even thought-provoking: \"There are things in life you put off, because you think you're gonna do them later. But the real thing Ivy taught me is you gotta live like there may not be a later.\"The scene where Ivy passes away en route leaving Paulie all alone is a very heart-rending moment. And the sequence where he plucks up the courage to fly for the first time across the Grand Canyon, soaring majestically is such a beautifully composed scene it stays with you for hours after the film's over.Despite the occasional sad moment, there are plenty of laughs to be had. Paulie falls in with a group of performing parrots at a Spanish outdoor restaurant. The animatronic effects here are really excellent as four birds do a perfectly choreographed dance number. And Paulie even gets to have a romance. Which is dashed when he falls in with a petty thief (played by Mohr as well). That may be the only complaint I have. As soon as you get comfortable with one situation, the film then moves Paulie on to another.The scene where Paulie is taught to steal money from ATM machines is funny, but a little disturbing too. I'm amazed DreamWorks were granted the chance to include such a scene in a kids film. And Paulie's diamond robbery is very Mission Impossible. He's caught in the act, and shipped off to the lab for animal testing, where he's remained ever since.The story finally comes full circle at the lab, where Misha vows to help Paulie. Of course they do find Marie. But the final revelation is a scene of such shocking intensity, I was left numb for several minutes. Paulie may never get the longevity Babe has, but I believe its an equally brilliant film. The same laughs. The same flawless effects. And the same surprising intelligence.A minor gem. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbe4a81e18104583a62c62e970042089", "input": "Review: The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc761b9e986f423eb3972ad5c3b85419", "input": "Review: I admit, I had to fast forward through this poorly transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- NOTHING was happening, and everyone has already described the \"plot.\" But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained. Really trippy opening.I wish this had been a better written or thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty daft and a movie that makes no sense isn't a \"clever\" movie, it's just a poorly executed film.I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help. Otherwise, this is an odd little film that is best if fast-forwarded through! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d6cc5d4e7c94de38bdeaf85a5e3fced", "input": "Review: Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running \"Hammer House of Horror\" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title \"The House that Bled to Death\" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, \"Growing Pains\" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. \"The House that Bled to Death\" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea7a88ee69c64f1783933ef26a3fe91e", "input": "Review: ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing. Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy – check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together. Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him. My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.All the actors represented their parts well. In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5b45cf7b6c942dfb35a137644c1a805", "input": "Review: Kim Basinger stars as Della, a housewife who has twin children (Terri and Tammi-played by Luke Gair and Erika-Shaye Gair) and an abusive jerk for a husband (Kenneth), played by Craig Sheffer.The movie opens on Christmas Eve. Kenneth is on his way home from work, driving a nice car too I might add. He is on his cellphone arguing with a business partner I would assume. When he gets home, he sees that the floor is a mess with shoes and toys spread all about. This angers him even more and he takes up with his wife, Della, asking her why the house is always a mess. He pins her up against the wall. The twin's watch from the stairs. He punches the wall, leaving a hole in it and walks away. She tends to the children, trying to comfort them. After that is all said in done, she needs to go to the mall to do some last minute shopping and because she is out of wrapping paper. She gets there and the parking lot is full because there is a lot of last minute shoppers there. While she is looking for a parking space, she notices a car taking up two spaces and this irks her. She finally finds a spot to park, makes her way over to the hoggish car and leaves a note under the wiper calling the owner a \"selfish jerk\". Then she goes in the mall to do her last minute shopping.When she finally does leave the mall, it is closing and many people have left already. Not the owner of the car she left the note on however and she notices this on the way to her vehicle. She also notices that the note she left under the wiper is no longer there. Odd. When she gets to her vehicle, she gets in to start it up. She notices a car coming up behind her and it blocks her from backing up. She gets out of the car only to be confronted by the owner of the car (Chuckie-played by Lukas Haas) she left the note on and a posse of his thug friends. Yelling ensues and a mall cop (no, not Paul Blart) makes his way over to them to see what the problem is, only to have his brains blown out of his head by Chuckie. While this happens, Della jumps in her vehicle, starts it and drives over the median in front of her. Chuckie and his posse hop in his car and give chase. Della ends up crashing her vehicle into a log pile at a housing development but she is unharmed. She manages to make it to the back of her vehicle, open up the hatchback and grab a toolbox before the thugs get there. With that, Della spends the rest of the night trying to outrun and out wit the thugs armed with only the tools that she has in her toolbox as weapons. The first kill, in my opinion, is the best. The first kill that Della performs anyway. The last one was probably the weakest and it should of been the best considering that this was the main bad guy she was offing. I will admit that there will be some that are put off buy the ending and I was let down a bit myself. As a whole though it was a fun flick and moves along nicely at it's 1 hour and 20 minute run time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a67d6991af094c159d1d47b69a102c7d", "input": "Review: I only know of one other movie that could possibly compete with Opening Night and that's Bergman';s Persona. Both movies are simply amazing, they have a richness of ideas hard to grasp at first sight. We have a profound meditation on the relation of art and life as one actress, Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), finds herself more in touch with the character she is playing on stage than she would want to. The accidental death of one of her fans, a young girl that declares her love for Myrtle and she is then hit by a car, leaves a deep mark in the actress. She starts asking herself question related to her aging that starts to affect her until the only solution becomes alcohol. But that doesn't help to much and Myrtle is one step away from complete madness. The scene where she kill the imaginary (or not) spirit of the dead girl is one of the most thrilling scenes I found in a Cassavets film. The movie ends with a display of genius on behalf of the director as he films a theater scene where he himself and Gena Rowlands improvise a scene, since Myrtle comes too drunk to the opening night to perform her part accurately. This scene was filmed spontaneously, with a live audience, the laughter is genuine, the chemistry between Casavates and Rowlands absolutely amazing. If you liked Persona or are interested in a movie that offers substantial ideas alongside great entertainment this movie will suit you just fine. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3496dd7ef344e00897f45cb56d4b4b9", "input": "Review: Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69d66b4ed58847449e681b7b4a4b7f82", "input": "Review: Going into see Seven Pounds i wasn't clearly sure what to think because the previews left to much open to grasp what the movie was really about. So within the first 20 min or so you are completely lost in the plot, have no idea what is going on and you think Tim, who claims to be Ben, is just a big asshole. All of this comes to an end when the \"twist\",so to speak, is unraveled at the very last minute of the movie. Basically Tim (will smith) was troubled and haunted by a big accident he made causing the end of seven peoples lives. By this he decides to scope out seven new people who are in need of help badly who he in turns gives his life to.The acting of this film is great, as i feel will smith no matter what part he seems to impress. Rosario Dawson, to me, this is one of her better movies, aside from eagle eye which i think is up there to. She has been in some bad some good but she does deliver in this film. Other actors, such as woody Harrelson, have very small roles and not a big enough role to grasp the character. Although the casting of the film was still good.This movie was definitely not what i expected and certainly a lot slower pace in which i hoped. The movie, however, was still pretty good. Nothing is revealed until the last 5 min of the movie and everything falls into place. Up until then it just seems like a pointless love story. Final thought seven pounds=seven Stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ee9b401d0be445a88dccbb403c99776", "input": "Review: Police Story is arguably one of the best works by the master of action himself.Compared to other action films,Police Story makes Schwarzenegger and Stallone look like beginners.The stunt scenes are well cheorgraphed and the action scenes are superb.If New Line Cinema has any sense,they would release this in theaters. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28c498521d034813853b979d229e3d33", "input": "Review: Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7471b80f4a74586980d996148453beb", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when Mystery Science Theater ran it in 1993. It is the worst thing I've ever seen. So bad in fact, that by sheer freakiness, this movie must get a ten rating because it has to be seen to be believed. Whoever wrote this script with children in mind should be beaten. I mean, really, the Devil vs. Santa? Visions of Hell? Creepy laughing wind-up reindeer? Forced Child labor with racial stereotypes? It ain't Sesame Street, that's for sure.As Crow exclaims during the MST3K showing, \"This is good ol' fashioned nightmare fuel!\" There's plenty of weird innuendo and screwed up theology. Merlin (presumably the Arthurian Merlin) hangs out with Santa in his crazy castle in the clouds (i.e. Heaven). Santa talks about baby Jesus and sends letters to \"Mr. Stork\" for children who ask for siblings. There are symbols around the castle that either look like pentagrams or RAF stars. My best friend and I have watch it every year since 1993 and we subject anybody we can hold down for 2 hours to watch it with us. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c86dcd44c764125b8bfe9547c0d927f", "input": "Review: I saw this in the theater and I instantly thought that it is good enough to own on video. I am a big nut for Sci-Fi action flicks though anyway.Without giving any of the story away, it is worth seeing if you like Sci-Fi without requiring much thought. The story is basic, and the plot is very good. Worth your time to see!Maybe they will make a sequel? :)8 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f85be952195b4b9093ddb542c951cd6f", "input": "Review: When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9483df5ee15f4864b988e500de716864", "input": "Review: OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-937a4aec5d9d41438760acc6f73dd029", "input": "Review: Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-91655fe3e18e429590a86812174f0242", "input": "Review: this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42fe2c0e73c3461f95348ae454c54b06", "input": "Review: Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is \"avant-garde\" or just \"stupid.\" Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to \"Amazing Grace\" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2f1ffe20c284659b013a7850991690e", "input": "Review: My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d37dbadf6a34570858d5906dd7ac2b7", "input": "Review: Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f84a82da66bf4a7b840f379ed9278c02", "input": "Review: Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female \"inmates\".Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.*1/2 out of **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8f6a13393b249b6b53d384ea3f307fa", "input": "Review: OK heres what I say: The movie was excellent. I am a huge Nancy fan and I have read all 1-56 original books and I went on to read more. I am now on 96. Beware of villains giving this movie a lower grade than it should have. All clues point to a wonderful movie! I loved the whole thing. So what Nancy is in current time. She is still old fashioned like she is in the books! People who haven't read more than 5 books are complaining about the view of Nancy. I have read all of them and I think Emma is perfect and that Nancy was perfect. I found parts of the movie spooky. I loved the exciting car chases and get aways. I loved the clues. I solved the mystery myself! It was really wonderful. I suggest you go see it since people who have been complaining know nothing of A what a good movie is and B about Nancy Drew. Go see it. It may not be Oscar worthy but its really a good movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30579b0b333045b981e11a0292f7cc65", "input": "Review: I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a99493070b0a45f99d554c4e9814044e", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aaa12a53cf7c4780a9ec17237c32adf2", "input": "Review: My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a29f2fef0d0143c584a9af5fe5d4c086", "input": "Review: This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-173de4d223a049e9a9273672dacf889a", "input": "Review: Now I love American Pie 1 and 2 while 3 was great just for Seann William Scott's performance as Stifler but after that the quality has dropped. Band Camp kept the standard reasonably high with characters you actually cared about but Naked Mile was the same joke and plot- lines recycled (Erik Stifler's sex problem is like Jim's). It had some amusing moments like the Football game against the midgets and the 'punishment' of Coozeman but on the whole it lacked originality and the 'Mile' was just stupid and moronic. Not to mention the irritating girlfriend who doesn't want to have sex. Anyway enough about the Naked Mile. I watched Beta House with apprehension as I thought it could take the series to a new low but I was pleasantly surprised. To be honest there is no real plot but it's filled with hot girls (Ashley is incredible) and sex jokes aplenty. Yes it is formulaic and the jokes are old but Dwight Stifler (Steve Talley) raises the bar with an exuberant performance. The Greek Olympiad is entertaining especially the penultimate and final events while Christopher McDonald's cameo is hilarious. There are weak points though. Coozeman is as irritating as he was in the first, I'm still baffled to as how he ever got a part. While Coozeman is bad Erik Stifler is worse. John White made Naked Mile a pain to watch but in Beta House he takes his performance to a whole new low. First and foremost he lacks charisma, a Stifler prerequisite. You really can't care less about him. The only reason I was bothered about his relationship was so Ashley could be on screen! She shines above him as does the rest of the cast. Seriously John White is the ultimate in bad acting and has about as much charisma as a dead fish. Saying that the film does entertain and Coozeman's fear that his girl is not exactly a girl is brilliantly funny. Overall this film is worth renting, get a few of your mates in and have a laugh at the vomit-fest event and vent your anger at Erik 'loser' Stifler. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a35c9c17bb464cdbbda054104e81bc5f", "input": "Review: Omigosh, this is seriously the scariest movie i have ever, ever seen. To say that i love horror movies would be an understatement, and i have seen heaps (considering the limited availability in New Zealand, that's quite a lot), but never before have i had to sleep with the light on...until i saw The Grudge.Some may say that it is a rip off of The Ring (both based on Japanese horror movies), both similar (yet different) story lines, but the Grudge holds its own as a terrifying movie - seeing at at the cinema, i even screamed at a certain point in the movie.The acting is great, particularly from the supporting characters - KaDee Strickland is fantastic and steals the show, she is such an enthusiastic person. Jason Behr is a real hottie, and William Mapother looks like he is having fun. However, while i am normally a fan of Clea DuVall's, she doesn't really seem into this movie. Of the supporting characters, hers probably got the most depth and back story, but she doesn't seem like she is all there. As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, well, she stays about the same through all her films and roles doesn't she? The ghosts were genuinely scary, the music and sound effects were chilling (particularly the noise being made when KaDee Strickland's character answered the phone in her apartment), the ending was cool too.Super highly recommended. 9/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-684184bea0b646b0aab1f48d7c606ed3", "input": "Review: Given the people involved, it is hard to see why this movie should be so messed up and dull. The writer, David Ward, wrote the amazing caper film \"The Sting\" two years later, Jane Fonda had just won an Academy Award for Klute, and Donald Sutherland had just done excellent work in films like \"Klute,\" \"Start the Revolution Without Me,\" and \"Kelly's Heroes.\" Plotwise, the movie is a caper tale, with a small gang of bumbling misfits planning a big heist. At the same time the movie wants to be hip satire, a series of comedy sketches of the type that the NBC television show \"Saturday Night\" would do so well two years later. The bad result is that the plot makes the comedy bits seem awkward and forced and the disconnected comedy bits destroy any kind of suspense that the heist might have. It is quite literally a movie that keeps smashing into itself, just as the cars in the cars in the demolition scenes run into each other.The only real interest for me was watching Jane Fonda. Her \"Iris Caine\" is supposed to be a light hearted version of her dramatic Bree Daniels prostitute character in \"Klute\" Yet, one doesn't believe her for a moment. It is always Jane Fonda pretending to be a prostitute that we are watching. It is as terrible a performance as her performance in \"Klute\" was terrific. It would be a good lesson for acting teachers to run the two films together to show how the same actress in the same type of role can be great or pathetic. It suggests that actors are only as good as their writers and directors. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-919b43b877d8406db2983a4512ee4eea", "input": "Review: I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f822df8d63664699a3088600aca9115e", "input": "Review: Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of \"Eddie\" and \"Marilyn\" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a \"typical\" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3174e14bbf6b4641aede4b09c72ecf91", "input": "Review: I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-14f98a024dca4bc7bff4a6fa0fc307cb", "input": "Review: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67cb8e6b29a7418cbc49b99e74bd38fb", "input": "Review: This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' ) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2f81d3474b54e6a883c19057f13cfc0", "input": "Review: I took a chance on \"Hardcastle and McCormick\" by purchasing the first season's worth (Canadian release) from Amazon. When I got it, I started with the pilot, and I was instantly hooked after that. I rated it 5 stars on Amazon, and I am rating it 10 stars here. It is just that good. What I liked about it were the opening and closing themes, and of course Stephen J. Cannell's logo at the end of each episode, but most of all, the relationship between the Judge and Mark as they worked together to crack each case. I was so hooked that I also purchased the second season as a companion, and I enjoyed it equally. If you do not have this excellent series on disc, I believe that you should purchase it and put it in your collection. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0b2c33463024e288bf571682b59dc70", "input": "Review: First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e37c12ecc2fc4511b506f6adae43d456", "input": "Review: Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as \"good,\" but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1036b76e1d514a9b8d0d00724e4ec32a", "input": "Review: Hey guys, i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.Sally Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-776757d79dc24e43ab6b04dc4113b048", "input": "Review: We fans of Ed Wood tend to be an obsessive bunch in the first place, but this movie in particular has driven me to a level of fan-dom that I have never before approached! One of the most intense thrills of non-mainstream movie adulation - at least as far as I am concerned - is the pleasure of unearthing the obscure. I remember how, as a teenager, I longed to see Eddie's \"Revenge of the Dead\" (a.k.a. \"Night of the Ghouls\"), which at that time had been vaulted for a couple of decades. Likewise such arcane masterpieces of low budget filmmaking as Doris Wishman's \"A Night to Dismember\" or half the works of Jesus Franco! However, recent years have seen video and DVD rendering these once unfindable treasures almost TOO accessible - even for those of us on the 'wrong' (!) side of the Atlantic....And then, behold, there was \"I Woke Up Early the Day I Died\" - a movie that SHOULD have been so 'big', yet which disappeared into the ether even before Fangoria printed the first fairly lengthy article on it that first whetted my appetite. The 1990s NEEDED a hard-to-find movie though which would REALLY be worth hunting out: and this, to be sure is it.... I don't especially wish to add too much of a commentary on all those marvellous aspects of the film - its classy-yet-kitsch cast, its haunting yet often hallucinogenic visuals, its wondrous moments of \"pure cinema\" (in the sense of the 1920s French cineastes) and surrealism, or even its resoundingly memorable soundtrack - since this has all been described most eloquently by other users here.What I DO wish to mention, briefly, is the pleasure that I have received also from hunting down certain obscure artefacts relating to this almost-lost-to-us-but-thankfully-not-quite movie! I think the German video, which I picked up while in Cologne on a cold crisp winter's day, is fairly well-known to Ed Wood's followers now. It is also quite common knowledge that a promotional poster for the film was released. However, there is thankfully more to be found!!! Firstly, there are a number of reviews available from the film's German THEATRICAL release - I have used several of these in my translation classes in an attempt to \"Woodify\" my students..... some of these reviews are positive eulogies to the film's artistry and entertainment value - and most interesting of all is that most critics placed it squarely within both the American trash AND European arthouse traditions. Secondly, there is the score by Larry Groupe', which can be acquired from the man himself - many of the tracks exert a truly emotional pull on the listener, particularly if you are contemplating the film's currently \"vaulted\" status and growing a little melancholy at the same time. Finally - for now - I wish to mention the promo SOUNDTRACK that Cinequanon put out in extremely limited numbers. BEG, BORROW, STEAL, KILL or do whatever it takes if you get the chance to acquire one of these!!!!!! It features 14 tracks from the film, including Eartha Kitt's ballad, the late Darcy Clay's \"Jesus I Was Evil\" (two versions of which are also available on CD from New Zealand, although that is another story again!), the cool radio music to which Christina Ricci dances, and also those amazing techno drops by Minty and ZHV (the latter being Billy Z's very own techno band).....Become obsessed - let Ed Wood rule your life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cdcc168d3c2f4cb78ac9794c8eb120ce", "input": "Review: The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b2c92da96834f5e880a6f3c91124f2b", "input": "Review: I do find it a bit overrated. Maybe it's just because I've never seen a subtitled version (dubbing stinks!), but I just don't get into it like a lot of other people do. The finale is really great though as Jackie trashes a mall, a scene that plays in my head every time i go shopping! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9faca3832c9044f6840818c5d5716621", "input": "Review: I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in \"The Lonely Lady\"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f743013e7704264a4a89f834c1846eb", "input": "Review: Throughout this film, you might think this film is just for kids. Well, it is mainly pointed towards them, but it's also well-rounded enough with the jokes pointed also at the adults in the audience. This time around, the Muppet gang try to get on Broadway, with the dire straits keeping them from getting it produced, leading them to splitting up. But Kermit won't stop, and his determination keeps things moving along until after getting the deal together he gets hit by a car and sent into amnesia! It's a send-up, in part, of those old starring vehicles from the 40s with musicals actually as the topic of a musical, only here there's the usual lot of zaniness and wonderful moments thrown into a pot of hysterically funny moments (Lou Zealand's boomerang fish; Gonzo's water-stunt display, the whisper campaign, among many others), but also with a lot of heart too. The Muppet writers aren't shy of the conventions, on the contrary, they embrace them to the point where it's almost refreshing to see such a 'lets put on a show' story where through thick and think the characters will meet their dream. While not as totally original in scope as the Muppet Movie, it's got many catchy and memorable songs, excellent locations all over Manhattan, and even some intonations of inter-species dating (and marriage)! Cameos include Liza Minneli (\"a frog?\"), Elliot Gould (as the cop), Brooke Shields (propositioned by a rat), Edward I. Koch, Gregory Hines and Joan Rivers. So get ready to sing-along, or just have a lot of big laughs and romantic (yes romantic) times with one of the best Muppet movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea05dc8c2c6f47f6b2ebc2ce01132a5d", "input": "Review: I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.I'm glad its over. I need to go see \"Tideland\" and wash this bad taste out of my mouth. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a155abacfac44989a05a3649eaa14c91", "input": "Review: Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-346ca28981254a1798964a5dffa27f8c", "input": "Review: Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dffc0230dc0b45a4b90350f51fd5f6b4", "input": "Review: This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-126791effc7d4c5e96b3b0ec5d4107c5", "input": "Review: Antonio Margheriti's \"Danza Macabra\" aka. \"Castle Of Blood\" of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's \"La Maschera Del Demonio\" (aka. \"Black Sunday\") of 1960 and Roger Corman's \"Pit And The Pendulum\" of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to \"Danza Macabra\" was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as \"Django\" (1966) and \"The Great Silence\" (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and \"Castle of Blood\" is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece. When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. \"Castle of Blood\" is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: \"Castle of Blood\" is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-514a33337181484f88398cf1961ac020", "input": "Review: At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, \"What was the plot again?\" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from \"The Matrix,\" although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about \"Star Wars\" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The \"Morpheus\" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43e9b98464424b83b55838c28c4c105a", "input": "Review: This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.There is not a false moment in this film.The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b24787bb7d24c21a354bfa846bbbae5", "input": "Review: 'Una Giornata Particolare' is a movie that has a title that sounds so familiar I thought I had seen it more than once. Now that I finally I have seen it, I am very glad. This is one of the better Italian movies I know, with one of the most wonderful performances by Marcello Mastroianni, who stars in other masterpieces such as 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2', both from the great Federico Fellini. Directed by Ettore Scola, this is a movie that takes the time to introduce the characters and slowly develops a story on a special day, the day Adolf Hitler visited Rome.Marcello Mastroianni plays Gabriele, the neighbor of Antonietta (Sophia Loren). She is a member of Mussolini's party, pretty fanatic in her thoughts, and he is a member no more. The reason for that I will not reveal. On the day every person from their building, including her husband and children, is out to see Hitler, they are still in the building. Antonietta's bird escapes and flies to Gabriele's apartment, and this is how the two meet. Right before Antonietta went to Gabriele he thought of killing himself, again for reasons I will not reveal. How the story develops from here I will not reveal, but it is what happens between the two that makes this such a special day, not the fact that Hitler is in Rome.Like I said, Mastroianni has a wonderful performance. You see he is a man who desperately wants someone around him, although at first we don't know why. May be he likes Antonietta, may be he is in love with her, may be there are other reasons. Antonietta feels what we feel. What does this man want from her? She likes the attention anyway. We see how she does her hair to look attractive for the man. Loren plays the scenes very good as well. We understand her questions, although we can't be sure what her intentions are. The moments where we find out both their secrets, if that is what you can call it, is a great moment. How the story develops from there is even more interesting, but I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a movie you should see. Great performances and a beautiful cinematography, and the message it gives us still stands today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90a561c17d8e42a9a4972aa718a1c901", "input": "Review: Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-67baede4b7af4dec81b1c9d892937795", "input": "Review: This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c99639ab8fec42849337656d68e1a354", "input": "Review: As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get \"involved\" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of \"folk hero,\" but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc12f195ed314b82a935cd89977660c1", "input": "Review: It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74cb6c41ce4f4a29b5dc3ad097de3e1a", "input": "Review: An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for \"killing\" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15105b062e8f4b429fde121e6c86a79e", "input": "Review: Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e59a01a933948f48b816edf3282c93a", "input": "Review: What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-83cef36414da4a8f91a085541cef3483", "input": "Review: This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b6acbcfd7e94fc1a738188caf7c108a", "input": "Review: Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running \"Hammer House of Horror\" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title \"The House that Bled to Death\" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, \"Growing Pains\" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. \"The House that Bled to Death\" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e9b2c25e42a43008123e9496473774e", "input": "Review: Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-970fe7fd64254c8caa513869809351b9", "input": "Review: I sit through movies like \"Tiempo de valientes\" and I want to talk about cinema for hours. The admiration this movie caused me is beyond my own limits of explanation, because I'm watching the scenes of the film and I search inside my thoughts for film-making ideas and dialogue innovations that could emerge from something bigger than Damian Szifron's mind.Looking the environment, so uncompromised, so simple, I'm thinking; this man is a genius. No wonder he created what is probably the best television show Argentina ever witnessed, and then a first movie full of elements some contemporary directors haven't still achieved. \"El fondo del mar\" is the name and, it awakened (a few years ago), my enthusiasm for our everyday cinema.Starting his journey from people's daily real lives, Szifron goes where Pablo Trapero never could in \"El Bonaerense\"; the Federal Police Department's life. Trapero's film was a journey into a man's mind and experiences, not into the places he saw. Yes, there was a detailed training and lots of crime situations, but Szifron in \"in there\", his is more of a detective story, like the ones we know and love, with the mysteries and the thrilling music.But there's a lot of humanity in his writing, and he shows us his investigation through the eyes of his main characters, Alfredo Díaz and Mariano Silverstein. There are a lot of actors of great caliber in the film, but these two actors are the ones the film can't do without. The first character (Luis Luque) is a detective that has just found out his wife cheats on him; and has to work on a case.The second one is a psychiatrist that is assigned the treatment of the detective. He wants to deal with him in regular sessions but the sheriff takes advantage of the time disposition and suggests he joins Díaz in his routines: \"It's nothing, the usual stuff; no problem\". But it is bigger than that, and it will unfold a part of the doctor's personality he didn't know.The relationship developed between the two leads can't be explained unless it is observed, because it regards such a complexity that demonstrates how talented are some men like Szifron that are trying, today, to leave a signature in our history. Reaching points of unbelievable spontaneity, during a high pressure situation, Díaz tells Silverstein: \"How do we continue our treatment?\", and Silverstein answers: \"No, I'm not your doctor. You call me to have dinner; I'm your friend\": we laugh because we can't help it.And we can't help laughing when Díaz crashes a car in the street and doesn't gives importance to it, or when he trespasses all the red lights in the street, or when he smokes pot in his police patrol and Silverstein can't believe it (but then smokes it too because he's screwed up); or when Silverstein tries to be friendly with Díaz's robber friends. Magic from Diego Peretti is what we receive there. He, a psychiatrist himself, gives a performance in plan \"Locas de amor\", but impresses with all his range. Luis Luque on the other hand, is back on track with a top-notch portrayal that reminds us the great actor he is.There's a passion I have for this, and as I said, I could write about it for hours, but unfortunately that's not the way it works and I have to be precise and summarize. Although I have to watch a lot of the old movies and study them, I could assure that \"Tiempo de valientes\" is the comedy Argentina had been waiting for and never got…Until now. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c3e248e165f4950bc60e5d7363b6f1b", "input": "Review: The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af4b84832ab54e3ba185e15a633e5bac", "input": "Review: One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, \"Dog bite Dog\" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-89ce4d9a27fd4b4f874665a05d90745d", "input": "Review: This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being \"people of color\" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb8f5703b8604f2e8e5261ab16668fd1", "input": "Review: I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book \"Modesty Blaise\" I was surprised the result got this good.What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up \"The network\" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.And please forgive me for my bad English Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5cc79f6ff3d447681f369ed796ea0b0", "input": "Review: I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cff692031b445a0bc13898dfea5cdb7", "input": "Review: After the success of the second instalment, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton decided that Blackadder should have a third appearance. This time instead of Tudor times or Elizabethan times, Edmund Blackadder (BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson) is living in the time of the French Revolution. Accompanied by the now stupid but lovable Baldrick (Tony Robinson) Blackadder is the \"faithful\" butler to George, the Prince Regent of Wales (Hugh Laurie). Throughout this third series to the wonderfully written sitcom Blackadder tries everything he can to get rich and powerful. He tries electing a lord for a rotten borough, tries to sell a book, tries to win a bet about The Scarlet Pimpernel, tries to be a highway man and finally poses as the Prince. This is a very good instalment to the popular comedy. Includes appearances from Robbie Coltrane, Tim McInnerny, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Fry. It won the BAFTA for Best Comedy Series, and it was nominated for Best Design and Best Make Up. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and Blackadder (all four series) was number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom. Outstanding! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02c1285e1fa14ccabc707bf22c81b3da", "input": "Review: Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down \"depth charges\" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment. Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks \"What did I do wrong?\" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible. Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: \"Can you do this every day?\" Emory is forced to nod \"No\" and the manager asks: \"Then what were you trying to prove?\" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day \"We just spit in your eye.\" Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it. This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5694ba578c8455ea2c2ddb775bfeca6", "input": "Review: This western is done in a different manner than most others. Realism is the key here. Conchata Farrell comes to Wyoming to work for Rip Torn on his ranch. How this is presented makes for a most interesting slice of Americana. I would have preferred to see this on the big screen rather than on tape, but it's worth a look to see just how life was back in the real west. Cinematography is excellent. Solid 9. Torn & Farrell excel in this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e918fa0487b43c98e23f7a0219c3fc2", "input": "Review: It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.I was amazed to see \"Marcus Aurelius\" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like \"Whoopie Goldberg\" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6864986b890a44f08be65c1bf9a0b804", "input": "Review: In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c62f6f0cbc8c403b82a6ffd546093fbf", "input": "Review: This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a \"chick flick.\" Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73cf9ca4d9704511b89ef4a24a122353", "input": "Review: This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1a95c43e16441278e1042b090345187", "input": "Review: I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of \"you know what\". Dirt on the \"mystery machine\" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ff759cdae25484689ee4d23c911b0cd", "input": "Review: 'Una Giornata Particolare' is a movie that has a title that sounds so familiar I thought I had seen it more than once. Now that I finally I have seen it, I am very glad. This is one of the better Italian movies I know, with one of the most wonderful performances by Marcello Mastroianni, who stars in other masterpieces such as 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2', both from the great Federico Fellini. Directed by Ettore Scola, this is a movie that takes the time to introduce the characters and slowly develops a story on a special day, the day Adolf Hitler visited Rome.Marcello Mastroianni plays Gabriele, the neighbor of Antonietta (Sophia Loren). She is a member of Mussolini's party, pretty fanatic in her thoughts, and he is a member no more. The reason for that I will not reveal. On the day every person from their building, including her husband and children, is out to see Hitler, they are still in the building. Antonietta's bird escapes and flies to Gabriele's apartment, and this is how the two meet. Right before Antonietta went to Gabriele he thought of killing himself, again for reasons I will not reveal. How the story develops from here I will not reveal, but it is what happens between the two that makes this such a special day, not the fact that Hitler is in Rome.Like I said, Mastroianni has a wonderful performance. You see he is a man who desperately wants someone around him, although at first we don't know why. May be he likes Antonietta, may be he is in love with her, may be there are other reasons. Antonietta feels what we feel. What does this man want from her? She likes the attention anyway. We see how she does her hair to look attractive for the man. Loren plays the scenes very good as well. We understand her questions, although we can't be sure what her intentions are. The moments where we find out both their secrets, if that is what you can call it, is a great moment. How the story develops from there is even more interesting, but I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a movie you should see. Great performances and a beautiful cinematography, and the message it gives us still stands today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51afef23fc614f29be0ea00330d1f402", "input": "Review: The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's \"Death Wish II\" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. \"D.W. II\" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). \"10 to Midnight\" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like \"The Evil that Men Do\" and the remaining \"Death Wish\" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.\"Kinjite\" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like \"The Mechanic\", \"Death Wish\", \"From Noon til 3\", \"Once Upon a Time in the West\", \"Red Sun\", \"The Great Escape\", \"The Magnificent Seven\", \"Rider on the Rain\", etc., etc.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9db3ba717cf94091a4731e2fb9c2ea3b", "input": "Review: This is a thoroughly diabolical tale of just how bad things can go wrong. A simple robbery. Pick up some serious change. Get our finances together and everything will be hunky-dory. But—mom and pop's jewelry store? No problem. Insurance pays for it all. No guns. Nobody gets hurt. Easy money.Older, more successful (it would appear) brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has a few minor problems. Heroin addiction, cocaine habituation. A wife (Marisa Tomei) that…well, he can't seem to perform for. His flat belly days long gone. Younger, sweet, slightly dim-witted younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) with a few dinero problems of his own. Behind in child support payments for his daughter, in debt to friends and relatives, not exactly wowing them in the work of work, etc.Sydney Lumet, in this performance at the age of 82 (!), directs and gets it 99.99 percent right, which is hard to do in a thriller. I have seen more thrillers than I can remember and most of the time the director gets the movie printed and lives with the plot holes, the improbabilities, the cheesy scenes, and the hurry-up ending. Here Lumet makes a thriller like it's a work of art. Every detail is perfect. The acting is superb. The plot has no holes. The story rings true and clear and represents a tale about human frailty that would honor the greatest filmmakers and even the Bard himself.Hoffman of course is excellent. When you don't have marquee, leading man presence, you have to get by on talent, workmanship and pure concentration. Ethan Hawke, who is no stranger to the sweet, little guy role, adds a layer of desperation and all too human incompetence to the part so that we don't know whether to pity him or trash him. Albert Finney plays the father of the wayward sons with a kind of steely intensity that belies his age. And Marisa Tomei, who has magical qualities of sexiness to go along with her unique creativity, manages to be both vulnerable and hard as nails as Andy's two timing wife. (But who could blame her?) It's almost a movie reviewer's sacrilege to give a commercial thriller five or ten stars, but if you study this film, as all aspiring film makers would be well advised to do, you will notice the kind of excessive (according to most Hollywood producers) attention to detail that makes for real art--the sort of thing that only great artists can do, and indeed cannot help but do. (By the way, I think there were twenty producers on this film—well, maybe a dozen; check the credits.) All I can say in summation is, Way to go Sydney Lumet, author of a slew of excellent films, and to show such fidelity to your craft and your art at such an advanced age—kudos. May we all do half so well.Okay, the 00.01 percent. It was unlikely that the father (Albert Finney) could have followed the cabs that Andy took around New York without somehow losing the tail. This is minor, and I wish all thrillers could have so small a blip. Also one wonders why Lumet decided not to tell us about the fate of Hank at the end. We can guess and guess. Perhaps his fate fell onto the cutting room floor. Perhaps Lumet was not satisfied with what was filmed and time ran out, and he just said, \"Leave it like that. It really doesn't matter.\" And I think it doesn't. What happens to Hank is not going to be good. He isn't the kind of guy who manages to run off to Mexico and is able to start a new life. He is the kind of guy who gets a \"light\" sentence of 10 to 20 and serves it and comes out a kind of shrunken human being who knows he wasn't really a man when he should have been.See this for Sidney Lumet, one of Hollywood's best, director of The Pawnbroker (1964), The Group (1966), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976), and many more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a2abb3f87ed4b00a83055d3002e42db", "input": "Review: Any movie with \"National Lampoon\" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience.\"National Lampoon's European Vacation\" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible \"comic\" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f275a0226b8548fa8f3c499f17a5cc25", "input": "Review: An interesting animation about the fate of a giant tiger, a sloth, and a mammoth, who saved a baby, who was close to be killed by a group of tigers during the ice age. The morale of the film shows that good behavior with the others may bring benefits at the end. One of the tigers in the group got an order to finally capture the baby, who was hardly saved by his mother when the tigers attacked her community. The baby was then rescued by the sloth and the mammoth, but the tiger joined them with the objective of finally taken away the baby. They went through very troublesome paths with plenty of danger, and at once the tiger was to fall down and saved by the mammoth. At the end the group of tigers tried to capture the baby but the mammoth helped incredibly by his tiger colleague was able to overcome this attack and to give the baby back to his father and the community to which he belongs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d222683b40b4185a2022fd0c0e8f962", "input": "Review: I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones. The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.I recommend \"The Sea is Watching\" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c634098abcf146a0ae6a6a01fcb601eb", "input": "Review: No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.Carlos is the bomb. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6787ce51eabe4c4bad618dc6010b39cd", "input": "Review: Never viewed this 1971 film and was greatly entertained by this great production created by the Walt Disney Studios and great animation creations. Angela Lansbury, (Eglantine Price) played an outstanding role as a woman who had taken a course in witch craft and was an apprentice who was beginning to fly on a broomstick and had quite a few difficulties taking off. Eglantine discovered many tricks and was able to make a bed travel to different parts of the world. However, Eglantine missed her final exams to becoming an accomplished witch. Mr. Emerlius Browne, (David Tomlinson) was the person who sold Eglantine this course in witchcraft and he tries to help her in every way possible to find her solution. Eglantine has a purpose to her madness and that is to stop the Nazi's from evading England. Great family entertainment and we need more films like this today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24155135699c4087979913b59ea0fed7", "input": "Review: I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series (\"The young and the restless\" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like \"You're dead now\". Then the main character says: \"If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me\". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): \"Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God\".Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91e2b792699345849e4df6ce20d758f6", "input": "Review: This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a22fd83acd72420a90bf7f8c9e1abaa5", "input": "Review: I reflect back to the days when I held my boyfriends hat to smell him into existence in my time alone when I was 16. The little moments of this film are so accurate and right on pace with what is going on in the minds and hearts of young girls during those coming of age teenage years. Now at my age I want to preach to them about their decisions and how life during those times are not as important as it all seems in those moments. That if they can be patient in their youth and wait to experience the hardships of life both external and internal that life would be so much sweeter. But then again young people today are faced with some variables that I never had to deal with a youth. The three main characters well played by all three actors (Kerry Wahington - Lanisha, Anna Simpson - Joycelyn and Melissa Martinez- Maria) give us the very believable depiction of a piece of reality for young girls living in impoverished situations. They have impoverished family lives all being raised by single mothers with expectation of Lanisha whose father is present but not actively supporting her day to day. The have impoverished educational systems and lack direct contact with achieving role models. These situations powerfully affect them and is their reality but all this is of no great depressive concern to these young women in their day to day. They except their plight and focus on the same things young girls all over the world are concerned with. Finding true love in a male, having good friends that you can depend on, gaining some respect/love and responsibility from parents and enjoying life. This is were this film cross the race, age and gender gap imposed upon it by its characters and the setting in which it is stamped. The Director and writer McKay explains on the DVD how each of scenes got into his head, by just observing young people of that age that lived in those types of neighborhoods. Plus you add three up and coming actresses who are not so far removed from that time in their own lives that you get a real good synergy of reality and acting at its best. The one thing I know about (African Americans and Hispanics) is that there is always a spiritual family member or neighbor that is in the foreground or near ground believing in a better day and better life and future in spite of the present situation and is role modeling that to some extent. This was never touched in the movie in order not to preach and I understand that but it also narrows the culture to having no hope in anything other than themselves. The HOPE FACTOR: I now think about my future and where I have come from and say as Lanisha did ` Today is a good day.' Yes poverty still exists, racism, sexism, and any other ism that we can added. Yes some of each of these young girls actions perpetuate the isms and are self-destructive, everything around them is impoverished but NONE of those actions past or neither present nor their environment leaves them without hope for a bright future. I was left with saddened hope of each of the characters and a deeper desire to be a role model in the life of some young girl on the edge of making a destructive decision. I suppose that is the value of film it should not only entertain but cause each of us to think, reflect and then act in some positive way to make this world a better place. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-738c80d079a34562be56f21d43d7f8c6", "input": "Review: For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's \"The Haunting of Hill House\") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-89e94057a62848848e913a77ea4df4a9", "input": "Review: A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a \"ripoff\") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!). The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-57ce76f4705f4ff4b9a55c0b932584da", "input": "Review: Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14AFear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.Runtime:88min 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-031d27decbc34305ba1e8d1b51411a74", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c01097f662f44966addde81289e62a58", "input": "Review: This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the \"Geeks\" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? \"We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster.\" See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88dd47d62b2c44e7afec19233ca8fcec", "input": "Review: Neat premise. Very unrealistic. What I learned from this movie is that speeding crazily out of control to go to the weekend cabin may not be the best idea after all. I loved how Bill conveniently rolls out of the car and down the hill with no injury at all! Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his gal. Oh, and the police never seemed to find the car or trace the owner of the wreck.Lots of dragged out scenes including a plain stripper (still have nightmares from that scene). Poor assistant guy and his crummy useless hand. I admit I was intrigued to see what the mysterious \"thing\" was behind the door, but when it appeared, I just laughed. HA HA HA!! The girl really seemed sadistically angry about being revived. Personally, I really would want a new body after an excruciating experience like that! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f943843a9acc4b86910491000f5af5cb", "input": "Review: The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself \"If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes\" I might actually go for the red hot needles.Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind \"Yeah that's some bad direction right there\".I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: \"Some Sacrifices Must Be Made\". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a \"thriller\" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up…oh how I wish.Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one…yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you…and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour…and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-327a358156e042418f6a850daf23a145", "input": "Review: Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' \"un maximum d'\"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9a4f0861e9a452eae93253dd8021d6c", "input": "Review: A team of archaeologists uncover a real treasure – the Crown of the Queen of Sheeba. From Egypt, the crown is to be transferred via steamship to San Francisco. But it won't be an easy journey. There are plenty of would-be thieves who would love to get their hands on the priceless jewels contained in the crown. Fortunately for all involved, Mr. Moto is on hand to guard the crown on its journey. However, that doesn't mean someone won't try to get their hands on the treasure.After the disappointment of Mr. Moto's Gamble, I went into Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation hoping for the best, but, admittedly, fearing the worst. But within the first 10 seconds of the film, I knew I would find it more enjoyable. I'm a sucker for a 1930s style mystery that features anything to do with archaeological digs in Egypt. And seeing Moto disguised as a German archaeologist (Imagine that, Peter Lorre playing a German?), the beginning scenes really drew me in. While the movie may have quickly shifted to the less exotic San Francisco, it remained just as enjoyable. Dark, sinister characters lurking in the rainy night; gunshots fired from open windows that narrowly miss the hero's head; sophisticated and supposed foolproof alarm systems just begging for someone to test them; and master criminals believed to be dead – these are the kind of elements found in a lot of the really good 1930s mysteries that I love. And Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation's got 'em all. A couple other bonuses for me included the always enjoyable Lionel Atwill in a nice little role, comic relief from G.P. Huntley that's actually funny, and a return to form for Mr. Moto. I've already mentioned his disguise in the movie's opening scenes, well the athletic Moto comes out near the film's finale. Moto is a like a Whirling Dervish of activity as he goes after his prey. All this and I haven't even mentioned the wonderful performance turned in by Lorre. Any way you look at it, Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation is a winner.As much as I hate that the Mr. Moto series had to end after this installment, it's understandable when you think about it. WWII was just around the corner. And after Pearl Harbor, a movie with a Japanese hero wouldn't have gone over very well. At least the Mr. Moto series ended on a very positive note. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4efdfd884eb465e8f25f8d83958ca66", "input": "Review: I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0d4ba5440f64b27947099cb324600f5", "input": "Review: A gave it a \"2\" instead of a \"1\" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.The \"sepia\" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0d5d94f909142fdb0a6401452070fed", "input": "Review: After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage playIn stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the sameThe first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerdThe film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fakeEven his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put offSome emotions do touch you but most are too over the topRajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okayAmongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f77ecae19a4144c3954f3e82ebd00449", "input": "Review: Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of \"At The Movies\" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside \"edgy\" projects.None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, \"two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole\". Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): \"you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...\". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's \"revolutionary\" life! For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by1. never providing most of Che's story; 2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; 3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; 4. barely developing an idea, or a character; 5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; 6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; 7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and 8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the \"revolutionaries\", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that \"Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time\". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant \"revolutionaries\", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).The rest of Part2's \"woods\" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read (\"I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!\"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was \"uneven\", Part2 actually \"goes rapidly downhill\" from there, \"charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail\", which \"...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid\".Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-841ccd85bf434b36a350fb3d79bf3a71", "input": "Review: Powers Booth is hypnotic as cult leader jim jones who led his Peoples Temple followers from 1953 until 1978 when he led them in a mass suicide in 1978 where over 900 died. A very well done movie which may seem a little dated due to the 70s time period but well worth the time 8 of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90eefb410e2044698c4384acb3d44d7d", "input": "Review: Not really spoilers in my opinion, but I wanted to cover myself, nevertheless. As the executive producer, Morgan Freeman wants the audience to ignore the numerous absurdities of his character in 10 Items Or Less, a movie with an intentional indie-feel, and just be absorbed in the mentor/be-all-that-you-can-be theme. He plays a alternate universe, semi-washed up version of the real Morgan Freeman, who is chauffeured in an old Econovan by a kid all the way into Carson, CA from Brentwood to research his next movie role. Why Carson, is a mystery to So. Cal residents. He could have saved the trip and gone anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and found the same elements. Paz Vega is pretty to watch, a cross between Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz, playing a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently is the ultimate source for Moragn Freeman's research. His character is only known as \"Him\" to allude to how actors are regarded when encountered in real life by average people-\"Psst, that's 'him,' etc. Unfortunately, I was too distracted that Him had all kinds of worldly wisdom and advice but had no reliable return back to his home in Brentwood, carried no cash or debit card, or had the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him. If one has such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like Him does, then I gotta see cash and a Blackberry which displays intelligence and good survival instincts to preserve that big ego which Him definitely has. Nothing really happens in this movie. I don't believe that either of the main character's were substantially changed by their encounter with each other. It flirts with the idea of adultery, but then that thought fizzles. This to me was similar to Steve Martin's Shopgirl, without the sexual affair. It was self-indulgent for Freeman and unconvincing to the audience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9abfd2de373c44ca87f8dc9f92d68150", "input": "Review: 'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e1bdb177a3ef40f0a53565965ead7389", "input": "Review: As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the \"Actor's Craft\" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play \"the part of a lifetime\" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd6bf823781c474db814e15ceff5cd95", "input": "Review: Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico \"Border Cop\". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.If you find the possibility of hearing \"Kojak\" and \"Oliver Douglas\" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of \"The Border\". If not, you may not have the stomach for the \"realistic\" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. ** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6b8821e6cb046ba9a5c33b700f5b483", "input": "Review: I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dad69ebcbc034251bbe721d80f939db6", "input": "Review: Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d3cc666301d4c0d983290d8aa4cad14", "input": "Review: I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0ad91bb27e24c0c8a37f9930f7e1116", "input": "Review: I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.I was aware of the \"Emma Peel\" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-def495d42d584ac58922c4819fa1518d", "input": "Review: You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for \"Bushy Bill\" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking \"pay-dirt\" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of \"Aqua Velva\" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe \"Leaves\" the \"Island\" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5598a3df9bb45bd95523b2a76236bdd", "input": "Review: Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on \"It's a wonderful life\". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b35b459d8074b12810bd9f3eb9db087", "input": "Review: Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore (\"oh wait now that you're close you do look old\" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-362a38a82c124e778985d76095ee252f", "input": "Review: The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-778f06c6e35a4006840c6138c4170e49", "input": "Review: I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got \"Spanish Judges\" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who \"claims\" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her \"Mars Girl\". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the \"Hot Shots!\" movies. But good review.Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6eb4a02158b543349777f82485d14212", "input": "Review: Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier \"living dead movies\",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's \"Evil Dead\".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c7e94c4a93a481887cfa1a69c1a88a4", "input": "Review: I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made \"monsters\" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it \"corny\" but i consider it \"classic\" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42880c98bb014e17bb9cae36d9bfc8cc", "input": "Review: Here's the good news first. \"Spirit\" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that \"Spirit\" got badly trounced by \"Lilo and Stitch\" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled \"Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink\".For all the incredible new animation technology on display in \"Spirit\", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-25ff8773162646d5a8719047312652f5", "input": "Review: I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think \"Kettle of Fish\" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76de743207b34d1488779b8d80b24e3e", "input": "Review: As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream \"hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!\". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bb6d90466b0446ca9f27180ff5079f0", "input": "Review: The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot. This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell \"you're stupid!\" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you. Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0cd1bc1d0d04381ab9eca3d8d24a1be", "input": "Review: Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.The only thing I liked about this film is the song \"'Bright Eyes\".If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-20c5d9d0daca4a98a1d9263dcf6e6a2f", "input": "Review: Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-84a63a3a63fa4180bcf817938c88df70", "input": "Review: I went to see Fever Pitch with my Mom, and I can say that we both loved it. It wasn't the typical romantic comedy where someone is pining for the other, and blah blah blah... You weren't waiting for the climatic first kiss or for them to finally get together. It was more real, because you saw them through the relationship, rather than the whole movie be about them getting together. People could actually relate to the film, because it didn't seem like extraordinary circumstances, or impossible situations. It was really funny, and I think it was Jimmy Fallon's best performance. All in all... I would definitely recommend it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f21c6c63576344ceb60b7d721ccfe7e8", "input": "Review: I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b333a348706544dcb1e8fb2aa6d21c13", "input": "Review: This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch \"State of Grace\" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dd8d90d4fa84150b3e2c6cdc92609eb", "input": "Review: Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b76de067601f4c02ac09b527f63cf3da", "input": "Review: That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot. What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong. I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c9c5b097b174b7497c57373e617b0ba", "input": "Review: My kids recently started watching the reruns of this show - both the early episodes on the N, and the later ones on ABC Family - and they love it. (I wasn't aware the show had even lasted past the first or second season) I'm curious as to what prompted all of the cast changes - I've seen them described as \"highly publicized,\" and yet a half hours searching efforts on the web have revealed nothing but endless comments on how the early episodes were so much better than the later episodes. (Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference - the scripts and themes remain largely the same throughout - but they do lose some great people along the way) My daughter has put the DVDs on her wish list, so perhaps the land of special features and commentary will shed some light on all of this. I also wish they'd done some self-referential humor about the changes - like on \"Boy Meets World\" where they drop the little sister for an entire season or so, and when a different actor later shows up playing her, they ask her where she's been and she says \"upstairs,\" or when early series token geek \"Minkus\" shows up for the high school graduation, they ask him where he's been and he says \"over there,\" pointing to the part of the classroom never shown by the camera, before saying \"Hey, Mr. Turner, wait up!\" and running off screen (Mr. turner being another character who left) Oh well - maybe there will be an E true Hollywood story on this or something? I was just glad to see Aunt Hilda show up for the finale - she was always one of my favorites - it's too bad it couldn't have been a more encompassing cast reunion. (The Zelda candle just didn't cut it for me) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8542e06d357c49129594192529506126", "input": "Review: Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5323c2b89304c129014fdcb7a87372c", "input": "Review: One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the \"Cake or Death\" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the \"Hitler/Pol Pot\" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d181980d9c9946e9b792b72375fc2abc", "input": "Review: Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase \"low budget\" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes \"molecular reorganization\". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic \"F\", so rest easy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b04cd80712cd4b918a6f750e1a316ba2", "input": "Review: ....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read \"The Dark Knight Returns\" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.**out of****stars Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fca15338f2345bc9fbb4cb040cc54c2", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4ed2daa2ecb471883b8cb1e4cfe4fb7", "input": "Review: A story of amazing disinterest kills \"The Psychic\" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in \"The Psychic.\"3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-021f4544a4974566a506c44d9e5387f9", "input": "Review: This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51cd9998455244dab2f75262ae125890", "input": "Review: I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching \"dankness falls\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c29e059e446e43ddad82b9d8cfb31ac2", "input": "Review: Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fc20895e0494448a2bf857f640f8088", "input": "Review: This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look \"authentic\". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30acf87fc54e4725823fbc7d210b2a97", "input": "Review: Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e078997f106047859c9165803ca73af1", "input": "Review: Other than Susan Hayward's wooden delivery throughout this film it was as good as any biblical film made. Henry King handles this film with the respect of an epic in all of the small scenes, and Peck is, as always, impeccable. The stirring Alfred Newman sound score, with the stirring twenty-third psalm is unforgettable even after these many years. The scene with Goliath is a bit on the hokey side, but not all that badly done for the era in which this film was made. This goes well alongside the lesser bible epics of the day, \"The Song of Ruth\" and \"Esther and the King.\" It is worth watching, and Raymond Massy is excellent as the prophet Nathan. The film is rounded out by the always fine James Robertson Justice as Abishai and Jayne Meadows as Michol, David's estranged first wife. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15a32f5c8c804191806b56006c075015", "input": "Review: A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb7577a1154f4eeaa903bfda26bd3eda", "input": "Review: Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e9406442cfe4e7bb6d2961dea15ecc2", "input": "Review: JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the boxTo give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wantsThe film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculousOne wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the storyEven there are several cringeworthy scenesDirection by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forcedAnil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b923db350d4d45609f9da06b9b04830c", "input": "Review: Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.\"Gung Ho\" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7499ea20280b44909d2bde5c111117f8", "input": "Review: I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c7295f0ec794bdf9fe525d861ee278c", "input": "Review: It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for \"film buffs\" especially interested in the silent to sound transition Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e6a98bb89094b308ee2d974d780cc3d", "input": "Review: I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and \"modern\" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those \"way-out gizmos\".If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21e1b683227846388a0184bbfd591669", "input": "Review: House of games has a strong story where obsession and illusion play a big part. A psychologist offers to help a patient with his gambling debts and gets caught at the game.Have you ever felt fascination for something that was both dangerous and wrong? Watch what happens if you pursue this urge and go all the way. Sit on the edge of your chair as tricksters are being tricked and victims turn into perpetrators. You're never sure of who is exactly who in this movie.This is both a quality and a drawback of the script. As the movie ends you feel that the story lacks a bit of consistency. But all this is largely compensated by the excellent psychological development.This is definitely one of the best movies about gambling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53ad365d51084a5c851aa06b79a6a064", "input": "Review: I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, \"riding with the Navajos\" and \"getting caught up in a couple of wars\" - was to \"catch up\" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the \"drunken Indian\"? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-25cba3edefcc4fd69911f1e69fae4008", "input": "Review: As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of \"Nancy Drew\"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch........and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated \"Candleshoe\".In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1abd3e3ad5004a66b78d7ef4aaa0a494", "input": "Review: From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in \"Manchurian Candidate.\" A disappointment on all counts. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-10b67644eb2240789e7a2747252be207", "input": "Review: I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e45028340114ad7a7c76f340059e700", "input": "Review: An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.The first half of \"Footlight Parade\" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in \"The Big Trail.\" Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be. In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, \"Honeymoon Hotel,\" \"By a Waterfall,\" and \"Shanghai Lil.\"Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill \"Bojangles\" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.Most critics prefer the \"Shanghai Lil\" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of \"By a Waterfall\" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color. Though not nearly as socially conscious as \"Gold Diggers of 1933,\" \"Footlight Parade\" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8ffd78864b74c1988d2228f4cb417c7", "input": "Review: Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ec64e29c2b445fd824753e792fb2fc9", "input": "Review: I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e248b08852e74c7d9e07147c98cd2b1d", "input": "Review: What a delightful romp – a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable – better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks – as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is – such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry – who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2142533c0e634473939e96ffebd8aae7", "input": "Review: Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that \"Lili Marleen\" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's \"women movies\" like \"The Marriage of Maria Braun\" (1979) and \"Lola\" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that \"stories can be told much better with women than with men\", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, \"women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner\". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play \"The City, the Garbage and the Death\" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title \"Shadow of Angels\" (1976).Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their \"misuse\" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because \"good\" and \"bad\" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d07262d7d3ff444f9c8f6790d05356b6", "input": "Review: The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9252d93e9790400c8784ef34a884bd55", "input": "Review: Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53d2b9f0511e427cb5505894ef461e1f", "input": "Review: I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.Well thank god a friend shouted me. Avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41a393837b7743fd8448782ccf7ac6e9", "input": "Review: I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut \"hero\": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading \"Cat's Cradle,\" my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus \"White Christmas\" albums. So it goes! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da821f6bdabb49a89175b96df1489cd1", "input": "Review: This anime was underrated and still is. Hardly the dorky kids movie as noted, i still come back to this 10 years after i first saw it. One of the better movies released.The animation while not perfect is good, camera tricks give it a 3D feel and the story is still as good today even after i grew up and saw ground-breakers like Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. It has nowhere near the depth obviously but try to see it from a lighthearted view. It's a story to entertain, not to question.Still one of my favourites I come back too when i feel like a giggle on over more lighthearted animes. Not to say its a childish movies, there are surprisingly sad moments in this and you need a sense of humour to see it all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-759f86a625a740d3aa225324ec765def", "input": "Review: Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: \"Quintet\", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in \"Forbidden Games\"; \"HealtH\", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; \"Popeye\", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; \"O.C. & Stiggs\", for its proposal of an anti-\"adolescents flick\"; \"Beyond Therapy\", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like \"The Dumb Waiter\" and \"The Laundromat\". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about \"The Gingerbread Man\", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike \"The Gingerbread Man\", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot \"Red Sorghum\", \"Ju Dou\" and \"Farewell My Concubine\". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his \"foreigner's gaze\", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f192219f5d0e4043b5bb323fe81f3f0c", "input": "Review: Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- \"Saint Crispin's Day\" and all that.Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. \"I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither.\" That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.You'll just love it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11504635089542abaa47d387cf3f453a", "input": "Review: The main question I pose concerning this film is, how do you film a cole porter musical and only use 3 of his 15 songs! merman and lahr played the lead roles on broadway, here they are replaced by the weaker red skelton and lucille ball. plot changes abound and the fun is lost.SKIP IT. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-26f39a0c98464430b4eb35c54af83452", "input": "Review: Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for \"millions of years\". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as \"cromosonic anomaly\". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fc9aaba86f44371b3e7926d8820d489", "input": "Review: Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker! Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, (\"But, cheri, why should that be a problem?\") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out. Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d70132f593749b79e33b7e9ad2c4016", "input": "Review: Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50b4f49215ce499bb6184d2b0444d46d", "input": "Review: I had seen this movie when it got released, and when I was 12 years old :) And I still vividly recollect the wonderful scenes of how the hero/heroine escape every time when faced with danger :) And the best feature of the movie was the portrayal of the villain! I think many so-called action movies copied a lot many \"escape scenes\" from this movie!! And not only does it never impress me when I see such copying, it always increases my appreciation for this masterpiece! :) The lead actors have acted wonderfully. The slow and realistic development of the chemistry b/w the hero and heroine was extremely natural and wonderfully portrayed. As children, we felt that the love that developed b/w them was very natural :) The way they face and overcome all their trials and tribulations together was something that can make even kids realize the value of true love, sacrifice and caring. I recommend that every person see this movie when given a chance!! --Vijay. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd2bb3a115a84d0e8693a69565dd99cf", "input": "Review: I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.Reminded me of drama at school... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d3633e7e6f04014af517047808f0d38", "input": "Review: A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in \"To Kill a Mockingbird\", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0afd43958202496b828a5780d618340d", "input": "Review: \"Telefilms\" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3000177d3bb64c9b9ee3fe439bfd44a2", "input": "Review: Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus… a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory! This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones… well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-26cdca736ffc4a5483c0d19c717a5692", "input": "Review: Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his \"marvellous\" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?A beautiful fraternal love story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-817153f4341044a787b661faaed641a6", "input": "Review: Riff Randell is a wildly, obsessed fan of the rock group; The Ramones and so are most of the students in the school. But a new tyrant of a principal, Ms. Togar thinks rock 'n' roll is a bad influence on the students, especially the music from The Ramones. So, when Riff finds out they're performing in town, she skips class for a couple of days to get tickets for herself and her friends. But when Ms. Togar discovers why she really took those days off she confiscates the tickets. While, this is happening Tom Roberts is totally love struck over Riff, but Riff's friend Kate Rambeau feels the same way about Tom. But Riff has her eyes set only on the lead singer Joe Ramone and hopefully in getting to that concert to get them to play her song.Fun! Fun! Fun! Yep, that's right 'Rock n Roll high School' doesn't drift away from it main focus… a boisterously, daggy romp! It wasn't what I was expecting, that's for sure. Everyone participating in this dandy project looks like they're having a great time and the relaxing nature of it shows on screen with the energy providing such a glowing spirit, which makes it a priceless experience. That's not to say I think its art and the plot is as pointless as can be. But watching this passionately, crazy ride that escalates into some good harmless high jinks, I just couldn't wipe the grin off my face. It's tacky, very cheesy, densely chaotic, but damn it's funky-dory! This low-budget, b-grade feature from producer Roger Corman and John Dante who was co-writer ( and plus he co-directed some scenes when director Allan Arkush was hospitalised on the last day shoot). Is basically a glorious homage on the rocking 1950s flicks by sticking with the fruitful clichés and throwing into the stew the teenage rebellion tag because of the generation gap between them and the adults (who always know best). These features might not be particularly fresh, but they do rack up some appeal because of the dynamically, gusto treatment. The film has just one thing on mind, to go out on a bang! And they manage to do that. Courtesy of 'The Ramones', who play themselves. Really, you could say its one big trendy video clip, since it's all about the Ramones… well, most of it anyway. I see a lot flack towards The Ramones' acting ability. These are musicians not actors, which means it's not about their acting here, it's the music we're suppose to dig. They're here to perform! Which, they deliver in that front with some kick ass tracks that peppered the film to create a totally upbeat vibe. Especially, their flamboyant concert performances. The buzzing soundtrack also had some killer tunes from some other artists such as Devo, The Velvet Underground, MC5, Fleetwood Mack, Eddie and the Hot Rods and Alice Cooper. But these jumping tracks fitted in well with the carefree feel and even the score was worked in rather well. Especially in the scenes involving Ms. Togar with the score grasping the right mood that surrounds her mind set. The playful mood of the film is pretty much like a roller coaster ride with such a racy pace between the electrifying tunes and comical segments ranging from scattered slapstick routines to it's sometimes clever, tongue-in-cheek dialogue. Thrown in for good measure is a variety of light and heavy gags, which I found very pleasurable and it gave it such a wider range to express itself.What else gave the film an added boost had to be the divine PJ Soles (better known for her performance in Halloween), who gave such a bang up performance as the peachy Riff Randell. Other exemplary performances were Dey Young, as the extremely cute Kate Rambeau, Vincent Van Patten as the gawky Tom Roberts and the go to man Eaglebauer who's stupendously played by Clint Howard. Also some top drawer Corman regulars pop up with great send up performances by Mary Woronov who's excellent as the demanding Ms. Togar who's pushing her unfair reign on the students, Paul Bartel as Mr. McGree and a small support role from Dick Millar towards the end. The enthusiastic acting is pretty campy, but that goes down well with the material and there's a certain likability stemming from these characters, but we totally despise Ms. Togar and her hall monitor goons.There's no beating around the bush here when I say 'Rock 'n' Roll High School' is an intoxicating hoot, of a rad time! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4cb5f2e57a2486cb0398049913e4fff", "input": "Review: I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2f933daa26f4579ad7f827ea24f12ce", "input": "Review: \"Stories of the Century\" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as \"Jonesy\" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.A very good early adult western. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-162e0ae55dc345ddbb9851d36250f82b", "input": "Review: George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-408df9ebdae543c3b3eae3c2ba8be22d", "input": "Review: I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-beb63d14277649c5a7902012019e88c9", "input": "Review: This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the \"Best Film of the Year\". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-178935d0b5154b9c86cb2d3c1946be7c", "input": "Review: After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-04bcfc5e33bb4ae9a83f5e8303f31115", "input": "Review: This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b322f1d59c743b6b910b787340865a9", "input": "Review: This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-912bf6bc30394073852c0088e54c942b", "input": "Review: I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e2035e097cb401c860a0cc59dc26acd", "input": "Review: \"The Invisible Mouse\" is a delightful and different Tom & Jerry's cartoon. It features the usual cat/mouse chases and battles, but in a different way this time. Jerry accidentally falls in a bottle of invisible ink and is obviously very glad about this because he realizes that he can prepare lots of \"surprises\" for Tom, scare him, torment him and confuse him.As much as it is weird, it's also very cool and funny to see what we can't see: Jerry invisible. It's amusing to see things lifting up in the air without seeing who's doing it (we know who, right?) - it's like those things had a life of their own or even almost like a matter of ghosts. It's equally amusing to see Jerry eating some candies and fruits while he's invisible. I really like that instrumental music which plays when he's not visible.Some of the best jokes on this short are when Tom sees Jerry's shadow and slams him and even when Tom tries to slam him with a frying pan and Jerry writes \"Missed me\". I also like when Jerry drinks Tom's chocolate milk, becoming visible again and with a happy look on his face.Overall, this short has the basic ingredients needed for a classic cartoon: humor, entertainment, fun and some nice artwork too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5573453529de477c997f35ad7d0f0bbe", "input": "Review: For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like \" Oh my gawd it`s heading this way \" and \" Run for your lives \" then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e20d1aeb2c246e6b0574b5a5c1684b8", "input": "Review: I went in not knowing anything about this movie and I walked out in an half hour knowing everything about it. It was one of worst movies I've ever seen. I'm a generally a nice person but if somebody told me they liked this movie, I would probably never talk to them again. Anybody who likes it throughly is most likely to have an extremely dry, hermit type personality. I'm gonna also include that they think they are pretty intelligent too, just like the self-centered fart bags who do the voices for the movie. I know everyone has different types of humor, some people may not even like mine, but that's okay; I don't think this covers any range of humor though. This movie is as flat and dull as Wes Anderson's mind. Go in and get ready to walk out; it's best to get your money back too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a078bf7bcc394b3e87057ff72f63f5c2", "input": "Review: I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see!I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-65275ec17b784b8790bc549deb279d4a", "input": "Review: For a comedy this has a decent and inventive plot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's comic timing is perfect. There are dozens of funny moments to this fantastic movie. I especially like the multitude of colors and the way the clash in the sports arena scenes. Robert Stacks Unsolved Mysteries spoof is also very amusing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78b6406e55bc436489e95d4d3c9ef112", "input": "Review: I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it \"it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem\".Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called \"The machine that changed the world\" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-193651abfcfc4acd9661dfbdbb727505", "input": "Review: Not a bad word to say about this film really. I wasn't initially impressed by it but it grew on me quickly. I like it a lot and I think its a shame that many people can't see past the fact that it was banned in some territories, mine being one of them. The film delivers in the shock, gore and atmosphere department. The score is a beautiful piece of suspense delivering apparatus. It only seems fair that Chris Young went on to be one of the best composers in the business. The acting in this film is of a somewhat high standard, if a little wooden in some spots, and the effects are very real and gritty. All of this is high praise for a good slasher film in my book. I've noted in some reviews that the film has gotten serious flack having the famous killer's P.O.V shot. And I ask: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? It is a classic shot that evokes dread into any good fan of the genre and is a great to keep the killer's identity a secret. The only thing that stops this film getting top marks in my book is that the surprise twist(killer revealed) is not handled with more care, I mean it just happens kind of quickly, though the great performances make it just about credible. Aside from that PRANKS is a great movie (though I prefer the original title) and its a shame that so many people knock it off as just a cheap piece of crap. Its more than that, but only few know that as it seems to have gotten lost in the haze of early 80s slasher. What a shame.... Its a really good movie people! Believe me! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcf2bc4b06124d19a31ca5cc564e0c9b", "input": "Review: Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-381bc63d16f64cac8157f40c75ad1865", "input": "Review: It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94383965203c41e1804bdd07e1047646", "input": "Review: Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b0aae7a60784a53a42af12a09c4c486", "input": "Review: First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2ceb5e28bed445d9c1106927d34ff8e", "input": "Review: This is probably my favorite movie of all time. It is perfection in its storytelling. It will break your heart not because it's over sentimental but because you will truly feel every emotion these characters go through. You feel for Doggie because of the hopeless situation that existed for young girls in China at that time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d20b4f615b941368c1ec8def4f217c3", "input": "Review: A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York \"characters\", Steve Brodie(Raft) and \"Chuck\" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the \"Main Guy\" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.Full of life and energy,\"The Bowery\" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early \"talkies\").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1f2cd96bc9a437a9402dafc5f52294c", "input": "Review: The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-540960906199480e90ec557311b57023", "input": "Review: Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b12b8300bf14a25a18d029c2ec5f7bd", "input": "Review: I happen to like Leslie Howard, in his better films. Yet, for some reason, his performance in OF HUMAN BONDAGE never has moved me tremendously. I first saw the film on my college campus in 1972 and the reviewer in the college newspaper made the comment that in the 1930s and 1940s Howard played the roles supposedly later picked up by Dirk Bogard as the man who was born to be betrayed. This is not usually the case (off hand I think of Ashley Wilkes as a man who might be betrayed, if he and Scarlett O'Hara were meant to be an item by Margaret Mitchell - but Ashley loved Melonie, not Scarlett). Howard could play any type, and a role like R. J. Mitchell or Professor Henry Higgins is not one who is betrayed.*(*One can make the case that Philip Armstrong Scott is betrayed by the two strangers he shows hospitality to in 49TH PARALLEL, but they are Nazis who consider him - a liberal, westerner, Canadian - fair game to double cross in wartime. It isn't the same as emotional betrayal, and Howard does not shrivel up as a result, but faces the Nazis and captures one after beating him up.) I think what the reviewer meant was that Howard could be soulful - or try to be soulful. Witness his poet - dreamer - wanderer in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. But that character was not betrayed, except by history perhaps (as he feels his type is as out of date as the gangster played by Humphrey Bogart). The character of Philip Carey in Somerset Maugham's OF HUMAN BONDAGE is soulful too. He is sensitive for several reasons. He has an interest in art and tries to become a painter - but unlike the artist Strickland in THE MOON AND SIXPENCE he has no real talent. So he decides to concentrate on medical studies, accentuated by a club foot condition he has. Here he is a man with low self-esteem who is set up to be betrayed.Philip finds that betrayal in the form of Mildred a Cockney waitress (Bette Davis) who is mercenary and as selfish as they come. Why Philip falls for her is not really addressed in the film, but he does find the woman fascinating. And she finds him an easy meal ticket. Ironically in being so captivated by this slut, Philip fails to notice two other women who are interested in him (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee), and are more fit to be his mate. He also keeps finding himself forgiving Davis when she has affairs with other men (Alan Hale and Reginald Denny - the latter a friend of Howard's). Although Howard's performance captures the doormat tendency of Philip towards Mildred, he really does not show enough passion (until late in the movie, when he turns on her). That is why I find I never cared for his performance here - it lacks any reality. His later tortured insistence in GONE WITH THE WIND that he loves Olivia De Haviland, not Vivian Leigh, has more consistency with a man in love. But the performance of Davis as Mildred makes the film important. She had a wide variety of parts up to 1934, like the girlfriend of the deaf pianist in THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD or the spoiled heiress who gets murdered in FOG OVER FRISCO or the mouse-like secretary in THREE ON A MATCH. As Mildred she finally showed she could be a major actress by playing a selfish bitch.Curiously her performance was not all of one note. While she uses and abuses Howard for two thirds of the film, culminating in that famous scene where she shows how disgusted his kissing of her made her, her last scenes show she too could fall apart due to her health deteriorating, and her inability to keep any honest jobs. When Howard rejects her the viewers fail to note how equally vicious he becomes (he asks what happened to her baby - she tells him the baby died and Howard says brusquely that he is glad, which is hardly the response she expects). In the end Howard does finally get his life in order, but Mildred ends a casualty (ironically her death discovered by her old boyfriend Denny on a medical call). The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences did fail to nominate Davis in 1934 (leading to the largest write - in campaign in it's history, and a permanent change in it's rules), but Davis was established as a star. In one year she won the Oscar as Joyce Heth in DANGEROUS. And in two years she co-starred with Howard again (as equal stars) in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-509da01345994e9b810817f0d93e6b54", "input": "Review: Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors...... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-010e784524ab4f31b7ff12357c0beb35", "input": "Review: This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-283b0209bcdb4b83aa0ef511d37b3fbc", "input": "Review: My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.DO NOT WATCH Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a8170f204b948e3afa9cc86a74ce516", "input": "Review: I had to endure teen-aged, high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. I really do not care about high-school girls fretting about their relationships. I've spent my time in Hell dealing with such issues and I care nothing about fictional teenies going through \"lite\" versions of the horrors I endured. I want science fiction. That's the only reason I'm here. There were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. We FINALLY see a proto-Cylon. It was good but with one problem. Its red eye-dot would lock onto an object of interest. We all know that Cylon eyedots always scan back and forth, giving the machine a map of the world. The red eye-dot does not ever stop moving back and forth.I really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c1d03d66b4641099af14513579620a1", "input": "Review: Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that \"we don't know\" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to \"the stars say it all\" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused \"agnostic\". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as \"we don't know\".This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0ab0b9e914c4854a88e0b5e7f5e5ec2", "input": "Review: Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8c4c11c872f49e78d14591e13f7033e", "input": "Review: This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in color. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-097ca25ae5da457f9ac0da080e4db056", "input": "Review: Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that \"we don't know\" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to \"the stars say it all\" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused \"agnostic\". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as \"we don't know\".This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c690f3a2d2b0478a8cc2211bf8a4e64e", "input": "Review: The \"Men in White\" movie is definitely one of the funniest, if not THE funniest, comedy movies I ever watched! (and I watched quite a lot!) It is about two garbagemen, who become \"Men in White\" and then stop an invasion from space. It is also a parody of lots of classic movies, such as \"Men in Black\", \"Star Wars\" or \"Dr. Strangelove\". Anyone who says that this movie is crappy has something wrong with his head. There are tons of funny gags and jokes here, and you might actually get injury to your mouth from laughing too hard (it happened to me!). If you can watch this movie on TV, watch it now - you certainly won't regret it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33ed72d1f2254810895e78d3d66f567a", "input": "Review: The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after \"Blow-Up\", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the \"rebel\" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some \"benefactor\" but \"destroying a genuine piece of American history\". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, \"joined\" in fantasy by the \"flower\" generation reflects the similar sequence in \"Red Desert\", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.Antionioni's two \"international\" films (the British \"Blow-Up\" and the American \"Zabriskie Point\") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be85fa33f14747c99c7a0ad9858efd3e", "input": "Review: This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d048a94fd19474dadfc0dca3546cf4d", "input": "Review: Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of \"furniture\" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the \"scoops\" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.The Bottom Line: An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c48c8f303314b43ba35f139f039347a", "input": "Review: I saw this film on television and fascinated by the beauty of Jennifer Mccomb. It was a neat film and you can watch it for the beauty of Africa and of course Mccomb. At that time I was thrilled watching this movie and from then onwards I am trying for VCD of this film but I am unable to find it. Huge African lions makes appearance int his film and we will be spell bounded simply by the size of those animals and grace of them. All section of audience can watch this movie particularly children will enjoy this film. But some scenes involving Mccomb forces parental guidance for this film. It is a enjoyable holiday movie for one and all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ede8b41117040f4beb8bda82a8faec0", "input": "Review: This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these \"stunt posteriors\" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, \"reveal\" themselves! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9181ab2273f49e19c42164f1018a8a2", "input": "Review: Wow...sheer brilliance.Turning a thriller/suspense/horror into comedy.After watching this, I never laughed so hard at a horror movie before...a ridiculous plot with 3 characters that were just insanely developed - either not written in depth or too much depth.If you want to watch an absolutely written horror movie with stupid dialog, messed up plot, useless scenes, wasted characters, bad sound and lousy development overall, then this is the one to watch.Be sure to keep focused for the classic \"food processor\" scene and the totally inept police investigation scenes.This is a remarkable new low in screen performance and writing and to sit through it for the entire duration makes you either stupid, daring or brave. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79618191da1d407faa8392b22b356b7c", "input": "Review: Early Hollywood at it's best!! A classic Kipling poem is transformed into an epic adventure featuring memorable performances by a stellar cast. I think the measure of a good film is how many times you can watch it and still genuinely enjoy it. I've seen it a dozen times and still cry at the end and, admit it, you do too!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2af25ddc5e82495a988db35512f1efc6", "input": "Review: The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9ec728600124349a6812a1ed5b3c2e9", "input": "Review: When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the \"message\" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the \"I am a good carrying person\" smile, the concerned look and the \"victory is ours\" body posture, while the bad guys have the \"I'm a bad one\" frowning and the \"you caught me\" look, followed by the \"I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society\" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e4766c9e80244359e98357e20abc913", "input": "Review: This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-550f6f465d6148829b30256fe1e29566", "input": "Review: One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, \"No they didn't!\", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a225adfa5a14e16a4e15b5cfc61b14c", "input": "Review: Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current \"B\" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a \"blockbuster\" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her \"will she kiss me - will she shoot me\" edge.I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4994a43db6ac4cbea913ea4923714c6d", "input": "Review: A found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.Yeah, spoiler.First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2cfef80dd01413e9206e940ed2865cf", "input": "Review: Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: * From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7ae6d34575c40e38f2a1cee61820b09", "input": "Review: Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with \"Envy\", no one could save this disaster.Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.Nick's invention, titled \"va-poo-rize\" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named \"J-man\", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tuxI say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-548dc21e132c484a8de4390c462dcf12", "input": "Review: 'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23b9c6b05c6e417a9a9ecadb4c167e3f", "input": "Review: My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. \"We're all powerful \"Gods\", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly.\" Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef7907e644094dafafb9fad059d48afb", "input": "Review: Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.Awful.Ridiculous.Waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c19b617bd40b49d1aa00d93f671f1b1a", "input": "Review: What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed70a17a552b406eb337f36d95c95d83", "input": "Review: I loved watching ''Sea Hunt '' back in the day , I was in grammar school and would get home do my homework and by 4:30 would be ready to watch ''Sea Hunt '' and Mike Nelson in his underwater adventures .I loved it ! He took to you a place not very accessible at that time , under the great blue sea . Pre ''Thunderball '' or even before Cousteau became common , there was Mike Nelson sparking the imagination of kids .I'd be willing to wager that more than a few kids developed their passion for oceanography or biology or one of the sciences from watching this show .Underwater photography also progressed , the fascination for exploration is easily stimulated thru watching this show . Watch and enjoy !!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc2a3d06f6c14488940ea2aeb2e48326", "input": "Review: One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-acc5a10188274065b3fddab3cabc379b", "input": "Review: I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might beconsidered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of drearymovies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the \"Candy bar! Candy bar!\" scene.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-554efcbf3bcd46888a99939253426136", "input": "Review: I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f85c485f68b143c3ac96033719c4296a", "input": "Review: As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically! Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out. Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.My rating: 5/5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ee36ae3135e4acdaed30eadf4dd3156", "input": "Review: I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1b56138a280472d936c93124a7a0f6c", "input": "Review: Hey guys, i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.Sally Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c91744c6b70c4ab6bc5fc77f643b67e5", "input": "Review: Easily one of the ten best movies of the 20th century. In Cold Blood is brilliant in the simplicity and realism of its storytelling, and absolutely riveting.Robert Blake walks away with the film. The story seems to be presented almost entirely from Perry's viewpoint, despite Dick being the leader and planner of the pair. The viewer will invariable perceive Dick as being more unstable, immature, and generally feel like Perry would not have been pulled into this nightmare but for Dick and his need to be somebody and pull off a big score.Based on a true story with particular attention to accuracy, In Cold Blood depicts the story behind the brutal and senseless murder of a rural Kansas family one cold, windy night, because Dick has bought into an age-old rural myth about prosperous farmers having a safe full of cash in their home. As \"prosecutor\" (a character that isn't given a name in the script), played by Will Geer, so astutely points out, their lives are bought for only $10 a head. Director Richard Brooks wisely chooses not to share with us the gruesome details of the murders until the end of the film, prior to this we only know it has happened and watch the lives of Dick and Perry slowly unravel as they attempt to escape not only being apprehended by law enforcement, but also Perry's own ever-escalating sense of impending doom. He repeatedly makes remarks, \"No one ever gets away with a thing like that,\" and \"I can't help thinking we left something behind that belongs to us.\" Dick is neither mature nor moral enough to feel any compelling sense of guilt over their crime, only irritation at Perry's. Indeed, after they are caught, it is Dick who breaks first, and suddenly faints when finally confronted with irrefutable proof that places the two men at the scene of the crime. I felt somewhat sorry for Perry from the very beginning of the film, and more-so as events progressed, but I only loathed Dick.The genius of the film is the engaging manner in which the story is played. We do not for a moment think we are watching actors portray characters, but that we are watching the actual participants and events as they occurred. The story is unrelenting, taunt, the run time slightly in excess of two hours feels more like just a few minutes.For those of you who are interested in such things, I noticed a couple of the \"Goofs\" listed here on the IMDb page for In Cold Blood are incorrect or exaggerated. Such as the \"reversed\" process shot, at the beginning of the film, as Dick and Perry are driving across the bridge into Kansas. To begin with, this isn't even a process shot, the camera is actually positioned in the backseat and the image you see beyond the windshield of the car is real. A large cargo truck located to the left front of Dick's Pontiac creates the optical illusion that they are going backward because it is traveling at a greater rate of speed, but closer examination will reveal that they are indeed going forward and it is an actual shot filmed from a moving vehicle. As I previously stated, this is one of the ten best works of 20th century cinema, not recommended for the very young due to some course language and implied and inferred violence (no actual in your face gore as a modern film would resort to), but a thoroughly excellent film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc5c3047b48e439fb7b70b2b930f48a4", "input": "Review: This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is \"unintentionally funny\" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be9f0f96d20342fcbb114b51142564f1", "input": "Review: As Most Off You Might off Seen Star Wars: Return Off The Jedi You May Knows Its A Good Movie But As You Might Have Seen On Video They M|might have a party At The end And They Just Probably End The Movie with the party with no a spirits or anything But on the original one (Live TV) When they are Partying But before i say more when Ben obi-wan dies in the Imperial Ship Or Death Star They Saw him Disappear And Yoda Dies From Either Old Age Or Internal Illness But because Luke killed Darth Vader (Real Name: Anakin Skywalker) When They All Are Partying At The end when Luke Or Someone Stops the Spirits Off Ben And Yoda Stands Starring At Him And Smiling While Another Spirit Appears Is its Darth Vader but not as A Sith As The Old Usual Selve off Him And Started Smiling with Ben And Yoda I reckon That made the movie ending a little bit interesting But the Producers or anyone should off made a spirit off Padme And Mace Windu And Other Jedis that got killed with Younglings Under There Arms in the back ground Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-93486e6babda44df83bfee5dd2967776", "input": "Review: First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6998bb3ed6e9425784d4dc0ccffa849c", "input": "Review: Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6344723cdab044aebf7f3f604012b000", "input": "Review: First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a \"B made for TV movie\" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1da50541f43e488ca58398be726730eb", "input": "Review: They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel \"The True History of the Kelly Gang\" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4aed99335ba54cb6905aebb10b3ed04b", "input": "Review: Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.My question is: \"Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b5b53db2cff4c7f9069233e5f0b64ef", "input": "Review: of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50a0cc0ac75c4ad69e9e1d9e42f6f76a", "input": "Review: This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50d94048878b4152937cb28590b21791", "input": "Review: What a perfect example of \"Less Is More...\" Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out \"Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior\" and \"Braveheart\" both starring Mel Gibson. Also \"Gladiator\" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The \"Thirteenth Warrior\" starring Antonio Banderas and \"Blade Runner\" starring Harrison Ford. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5119e4c0085b43679c703bcda24e1625", "input": "Review: I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a83c48df0e3745b6b691b52dfce5204a", "input": "Review: So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-200d141c834f416a8168c21f3eb130b7", "input": "Review: Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5248e703c254f20993ff995afe2767d", "input": "Review: Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.\"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark\" starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her \"endowments\" and sexiness as a joke (\"And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads\"). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4795d80b6884446a590044e7c158fd7", "input": "Review: A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62a416428f354ae3b1390ce847641ac2", "input": "Review: I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.Totally failure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ee3429d9a064328842bc17cfd1b8c0c", "input": "Review: This is a great example of a rather simple Film Noir story that is handled exceptionally well--thanks to excellent direction by Otto Preminger as well as some lovely acting performances. Dana Andrews stars as a hot-headed detective who all too often uses his fists instead of his brains. Soon after the film begins, Andrews is being reprimanded for this and is warned that if this continues he'll be off the force. A bit later, while investigating a crime he's attacked by a suspect and Andrews is forced to fight to protect himself. This time he does NOT use excessive force but the assailant is killed. Andrews panics and assumes they won't believe him so he tries to cover up the death--though instead an innocent man is ultimately blamed for the crime.There's a lot more to the film than this--including a plot involving a slimy villain (Gary Merrill) and a love interest for Andrews (Gene Tierney). All in all, this is one of the better examples of the genre--with great gritty dialog, superb lighting and a simple yet very effective story. This is the way Noir was meant to be. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-642f0ebcde5c436982f6c49e2236f156", "input": "Review: Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange. I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb029d4b3ac74000afc490657ff726ac", "input": "Review: I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07ba885fae374850b40a5aecfe5affa5", "input": "Review: I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.The movie begins with promise. I liked \"The Exorcist\" parody, especially the \"come on out, ma\" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, \"It was just a booty call!!\" That was kinda funny. 2) The \"Save the Last Dance\" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d938ebe6f09f4d0091d02909e1a4d7b1", "input": "Review: This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-137a00054732449e8ea7ccc1100d6fa7", "input": "Review: I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e9233cd99ab4edca072be1721f9552a", "input": "Review: OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.It began off alright, and we thought \"Ok this might actually be OK\". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.It began when the \"mysterious paint baller\" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like \"The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ\" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e4fe2543bce424698c7e17fd3c0a012", "input": "Review: Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfcd238ee3d04c108c9d896a1954a744", "input": "Review: Hot Millions is a great movie in every way. A fun, offbeat story with wonderful performances by four of the best professionals ever to work in the business. Peter Ustinov is brilliant, as usual, and Maggie Smith---definitely one of the greatest actresses of all time--- is a total delight. Karl Malden and Bob Newhart round out the cast and are also perfect. If you want a movie that has perfect casting, this is it. What is so impressive is the way these people work off each other in such a natural and effortless way, creating lots of laughs and fun moments throughout. Peter Ustinov was a genius with a wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his most memorable performances. The direction, photography, and editing are also first-rate, and it's a great time capsule of London in the '60s. It's definitely on my all-time favorites list. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-37b2096873d047198608215428633eaf", "input": "Review: definitely needed a little work in season 2. Such as the Virus between Max and Logan, and Ames White along with his ancient, super cult. During season two, however, the only thing that kept me watching was to see if Max and Logan would ever get rid of the nasty virus infecting Max. Very good drama in season two. But of course like all TV shows, if there's something a little wrong with it, the broadcasting company takes it off the air. I was seriously hoping for a third and final season. Season 2 leaves you hanging, unless you read the books by Max Allan Collins, then you will know what happens.Dark Angel should be put back on the air for one more season even though it might cost a lot just to get all the original actors again. since Jessica Alba's carrier sky rocketed after the show. If that would be the case, then there should be a movie to complete it. just like the show Firefly, which of course FOX canceled as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fe81bbbd08f4847ba0d25ce5f176aa9", "input": "Review: This is a decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62ec566b87b24a2c8ae590fcf8d857d0", "input": "Review: This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15a063b11a134caa83a2f6f0cf629ad5", "input": "Review: Poorly structured, badly written, loaded with cliches and flat dialogue. Not a single scene shines. The actors struggle with a painfully dull scenario that manages to completely avoid any surprises, plot twists or conflict. You know from the first ten minutes where it's going.For a movie set in NY, it has almost no feeling for the city. There are a dozen other indie movies that manage to make it seem magical on a small budget. This one seems like it was shot in Toronto.If you cast Natasha Henstridge, why dress her in baggy sweaters? Why make Vartan look boring and drab? Where's the attraction? I felt like I was watching a sub-par Christian movie of the week it was so asexual and moralizing.Steven Feder's big success is that he convinced people to make this bland movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f77bf6a6ab6a4589a1f515e423d4d6d3", "input": "Review: That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb5476d8873e4b018671298ab1759d78", "input": "Review: The feel of this movie was amazing. Adam Sandler's performance was very inspiring. As he played a very rattled and fragile character, he took his ability to the very edge and really worked the role. His character was really interesting. I can see myself reading the script for this movie and not being half as interested in the part as Sandler made me. For someone who plays primarily comedy roles, he pulled off a serious role with what seemed to be his own quirks and input. I especially loved the scene in which Adam and Don's characters rode the motorized scooter around the city. I familiarized with the moment, because it seemed like Don was witnessing one thing Adam does to get away from it all. With his video games, music, and many other things he does to keep him from thinking about the past, riding his scooter with his headphones on seemed like an escape from his thoughts. This movie is definitely worth the watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bc03edeb87a474abab9a686492198c0", "input": "Review: Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman \"Brass Balls\" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival \"Wacky\" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on \"My Way\" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc7d31ef111b49aa9fccbe6bb2eda374", "input": "Review: This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' ) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dab76fe5f2064699907a464df142b9e7", "input": "Review: Joan Crawford had just begun her \"working girl makes good\" phase with the dynamic \"Paid\" (1930). She had never attempted a role like that before and critics were impressed. So while other actresses were wondering why their careers were foundering (because they were clinging to characters that had been the \"in\" thing a few years before but were now becoming passe) Joan was listening to the public and securing her longevity as an actress. The depression was here and jazz age babies who survived on an endless round of parties were frowned upon. Of course, if you became rich through immoral means but suffered for it - that was alright.This film starts out with a spectacular house boat party. Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) is the most popular girl there - especially when she suggests that everyone go swimming in their underwear!!! However, when Bonnie's father has a heart attack, because of loses on the stock market, both Bonnie and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) realise who their real friends are. After Bob Townsend (Lester Vail - a poor man's Johnny Mack Brown) offers to do the \"right thing\" and marry her - they had just spent a night together when Bonnie declared (with abandon) that she wants love on approval - she starts to show some character by deciding to get a job.She finds a job at a newspaper and quickly impresses by her will to do well. Her working buddy is Bert Scranton (Cliff Edwards) and together they are given an assignment to write about the inside activities of the mob. Rodney also surprises her with the news that he also has a job. She is thrilled for him but soon realises it is bootlegging and he is mixed up with cold blooded killer, Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Rodney witnesses a mass shooting and goes to pieces, \"spilling the beans\" to the first person he sees drinking at the bar - which happens to be Bert. He is then forced to kill Bert and after- wards he goes into hiding. The paper pulls out all stops in an effort to find Bert's killer and sends Bonnie undercover as a dancer in one of Jake's clubs. (Joan does a very lively dance to \"Accordian Joe\" - much to Sylvie's disgust). The film ends with a gun battle and as Rodney lies dying, Bonnie tearfully phones in her story.This is a super film with Crawford and Gable giving it their all. Natalie Moorehead, who as Sylvie shared a famous \"cigarette scene\" with Gable early in the film, was a stylish \"other woman\" who had her vogue in the early thirties. William Bakewell had a huge career (he had started as a teenager in a Douglas Fairbanks film in the mid 20s). A lot of his roles though were weak, spineless characters. In this film he played the weak brother and was completely over-shadowed by Joan Crawford and the dynamic newcomer Clark Gable - maybe that was why he never became a star.Highly Recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec4ae22e16bb47c5a7025edb8adacb2a", "input": "Review: An axellent second installment that manages to be just as good as the first. Once again, the casting is just wonderful. I like how the first and second episode have nothing in common except for the wit and cleverness.The second episode is just very funny, very silly and very enjoyable. It is the very first Christmas episode, about a woman who is tormented by a serial killer dressed as Santa after having killed her own husband. Just like the first episode; karma.The most humorous scene is a tie between the murder of her husband and her phone call, first faking her fear until it becomes real. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6cd2804982046049d40dae265004f03", "input": "Review: The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b988cfe70034a50b66cd9dd740a126a", "input": "Review: I remember seeing this movie when I was about 7; and at the time it shocked me. I had seen a violent movie before, but I never saw a movie with the consequences and reality of violence. This movie not only shows this, but it also shows how people can change their lives and choose happiness. What this movie did and crash failed to do was to be truthful. Crash tried to show how racism was bad (and Crash actually had a built-in anti Asian bias) and to come at it from a morally superior position. Grand Canyon came at things from such a raw and real perspective that it actually ends up on a higher ground than crash. Especially when you compare the endings. The ending of crash is this supposedly neat little ending that ties everything up. While Grand Canyon simply ends on a quiet note, where you know nothing much will change in the character's lives but that's because life just goes on too, there's no suitable ending. No matter how good...bad you are. There is no ending of a chapter to begin another. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca3d6ca2b875440c8c2572a72f59eb2f", "input": "Review: Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5f7d96a5eeb40f194f5a3fbe94fd77b", "input": "Review: A young ( only 21 ) director with great talent, a powerful scenario, young and ambitious cast with all theatrical background...One of the first tries of a thriller in Turkish cinema, which seems in the future we'll have some more based on the success...Shot on high definition video, the movie is perhaps effected on world thrillers, especially the American thrillers. The technical and cinematographic character is quite well done, the scenes are all well worked on. Not too much blood but sufficient enough to make you think you're in a blood bath too...The scenario is quite wise but with certain clues, a clever audience can easily predict what's going on and at the end when everything settles down you're getting somehow weird to conclude the result.Well done Tiglon, one of the biggest DVD distributors in Turkey, it is not easy to decide for such a movie in their first try as a production company... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cdbd2f5556c4ae5bc8842eb646b7b4d", "input": "Review: I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-defe6d7e4f1f4bb1a8d63bfdca4f7abe", "input": "Review: SPOILERS ALERTHomeward Bound: The Incredible Journey is an important film from my life because it's the first film I remember seeing in the cinema of my home town as a 4-year old scamp. The story is based on the Sheila Burnford novel, and is a reason why it's not possible to write this one off as a brainless Lassie clone.The basic story: Two dogs and a cat happily live in the Seaver family when the new husband to the mother of the three children, gets a job in the city and they have to temporarily move into inner San Francisco while the animals are sent to a ranch to live for a couple of months. The bonds between the animals and the children they watch out for are especially strong, and Shadow the golden retriever and Sassy the Himalayan cat are heartbroken as the children are, though the young and happy-go-lucky American Bulldog known as Chance is a little less concerned and somewhat cynical (due in part to his voice-over explaining his being abandoned as a pup, picked up to an animal shelter, and being bought by the family), though his growth as a character during the story provides much of the important storytelling.The three pets escape the ranch and head off into the wide and dangerous wilderness (fantastic wilderness settings by the way), driven on by Shadow's instincts of direction. They meet several perils along the way, hoping to make it home, while the family and the ranch hosts are suddenly concerned about the animal disappearance. There are funny moments all the way through, great dialogue between the three animals and hilarious lines (see - memorable quotes), and a touching comradeship that grows between the main characters during the course of the storytelling, punctuated by moments of sadness (such as when Sassy's arrogance of trying to cross a river without getting wet causes her to fall in the river and get washed down a waterfall, leaves a moment of loss that is felt deeply by the viewers).Somehow though, I fail to see what the inclusion of saving the girl lost in the wilderness adds to the story and the journey they take. Somehow, it seems a little unnecessary as part of the story.The ending cranks the stakes higher when shadow falls into a pit in a trainyard and having hurt his leg, finds it hard to get out and gives up, exhausted, followed by Chance climbing in with him to persuade him to climb out, telling him how important he is to him and how he's pushed them this far so he shouldn't throw it all away so easily. The way that this scene (brilliantly done) isn't concluded leaves an ambiguity that carries on into the final scene when Chance and Sassy return home, but Shadow is nowhere to be seen. Then just as all seems lost, he slowly appears, and is reunited with the family. Chance's conclusion at the end speaks of the comradeship that has developed between he and his fellows on the journey, and the realisation to what home really is from his long journey to get there, leaves a fine epilogue to demonstrate how much his character has grown, but also how the other two have as well. Hang on a second, I think I'm going to cry...Anyway, I haven't read Sheila Burnford's book, so I don't pretend to know where the differences between book and film lie. But this is a film that all the family can watch, and while the tots will love the talking animals, older viewers will understand the plot line better (as I found when I watched the film again after several years without seeing it). This film is a masterpiece in cinema, and I suggest that if you haven't seen it you go out and get it!And please avoid the sequel (see my review for Homeward Bound II!) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f29e12226a0d4fc19cd10eca4d82fde2", "input": "Review: The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4340efa4c78d4c38874604ad4c8a8a73", "input": "Review: Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.In short, this remains a quality \"popcorn\" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-690f261a012a40f4a0f182308bd4735b", "input": "Review: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d84e24b2d53f4fa08e72b66b686f7068", "input": "Review: The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her \"aunt's\" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e62fc95237e4a02ae9882566408c87e", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an \"Elvis\" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7089d5940e8f4890ae4a413dca5c1e32", "input": "Review: After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d723909046234cc89f6a1bb6d8572778", "input": "Review: This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks \"vampire politics\" are more important than her.Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6d47fbd542d4dcab0c2eb71cbd5c4cf", "input": "Review: Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56f1214efe1c4e309b4e51d7f79bdf8d", "input": "Review: The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c4fee32b3b2404882a4086b5ba9b01d", "input": "Review: I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked \"Breaking the Waves\", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b63172e922b445d4b1b10f3ece71c274", "input": "Review: Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason… his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn… Bunny Comes Home… gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true… then, the future we spin into again is fantastical… now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane… how expensive, blissfully optimistic… still, \"You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true…\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4773b3c7b24b44ac8b8979e202f3231e", "input": "Review: Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82628b9867d2446cb18e65b59dcb3263", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07bc3370547b447889952bdcfb91a2d6", "input": "Review: With films like \"Wallace & Gromit\" and \"Chicken Run\" under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of \"Creature Comforts\".Derived from a short done early in their careers, \"Creature Comforts\" is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, \"Are you a liar?\" and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, \"I like them kind of thin.\" is an insect, the Walking Stick.There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.There are two birds in a cage. As the \"wife\" tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.While it might take some time for \"Creature Comforts\" to find it's \"legs\", it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, \"Creature Comforts\" is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7bb417326bd45cf926c7535ebc0991c", "input": "Review: So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will \"wait and see\" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b32b86215454156b667134a9debbe4e", "input": "Review: 'Holes' was a GREAT movie. Disney made the right choice. Every person who I have talked to about it said they LOVED it. Everyone casted was fit for the part they had, and Shia Labeouf really has a future with acting. Sigourney Weaver was perfect for The Warden, she was exactly how I imagined her. everyone who hasn't seen it I recommend it and I guarantee you will 'Dig It'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-97364778b69a4d428610ad950973624c", "input": "Review: When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions. Yes, the movie is very much like \"Bend it like Beckham\", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddca4a0a116146ceb1a0b7ab5c0769c8", "input": "Review: I found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.Torn, in the end I judged it a 7. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34a6ea28968041d5b49fb8f5b229b6ee", "input": "Review: What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.It gets a 9/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e38b35c5ea34096b2984cf45ab238ec", "input": "Review: Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the \"Chosen One\".)NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a31925ae01354e19815c172c3b9ef618", "input": "Review: I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the \"silly\" or \"stupid\" choices. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-20b87753905446079df4df8c2ec2d05e", "input": "Review: Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name. The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with. Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b1fe2204f644b34ba00fc11fbe0e32b", "input": "Review: I wouldn't be so quick to look at all the good reviews and say this might be a good show..This show is only good if you don't know what \"talent\" is..I won't even say how offensive it is (I know it can be offensive to a lot of people) because thats not really what bothers me about the show.. What bothers me is that people watch this and think it's funny..It makes me feel like our generation is getting to stupid and I'm actually scared that it will one day be run by people who watch this garbage..Basically the plot is simple..it's about an offensive,self centered,spoiled women(Sarah Silvermen) getting through everyday life..Thats it..Like that hasn't been done a million times..In fact almost every joke either has been done or is racist..Sarah also likes to sing..I like her voice..thats it..not the lyrics..The lyrics are dreadful..which she likes to sing about a lot of things..If you like to see a hot women put everyone else down and make them feel like crap while at the same time farting and saying crap about every race then this show is for you.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b2229b04c1e49a3b99e7a19f531bd5d", "input": "Review: From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity \"over with.\" Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-310c95b5095b478da5dea0ef9a9255c0", "input": "Review: i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-714576b95cac4881ae0d8a7def246c68", "input": "Review: Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of \"furniture\" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the \"scoops\" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.The Bottom Line: An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e402ec9f0d0e4d848b0d35e18eb3fa9c", "input": "Review: A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic \"I Spit on Your Grave\". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eff4afe2f5c04d0abc7129070d5b3a27", "input": "Review: for my opinion, the middle of the film, specially the love scene is a bit too long, but the whole time you can imagine this desert feeling. but the best, what made this film unforgettable are the great explosion pictures, their color, slowmotion and the pink floyd music are unique in filmhistory!destruction in its propper and popular form. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8808d18d915419cab25edb5b9444ea6", "input": "Review: \"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.Rino Di Silvestro's \"La lupa mannara\" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening \"flashback\" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.As a film, \"Werewolf Woman\" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9932d398110241a5a14460a5b4cfd329", "input": "Review: This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was \"chosen\" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73fddcdac8c146ea87c8395f35b4e2bc", "input": "Review: Worst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dc94dbf3f2e4ff2a3d441d7756e11df", "input": "Review: To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc59c99a5ced4035b5e0cfa609485fe0", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorites along with the Mariette Hartley and Robert Lansing \"Sandy\" and the Agnes Moorhead-and-the-tiny-spacemen episodes.It is an important take, from mid-1961, on the long Cold War that the U.S. was then embroiled in. The beaten-down city-scene, the near-starving characters' sparse dialog, their threadbare uniforms, and the minimal action \"says\" it all: the absurdity of an on-going conflict that threatens to destroy human life, modern civilization, and all that is sweet and redeeming about it.It is a \"fable\" because it was made in a time in which, had events turned out differently, such as the second Berlin Crisis (Spring 1961) and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (Oct. 1962), it would have actually been a reasonable representation of one of the U.S.'s major cities, ruined and replete with a few miserable survivors. I also see it as a \"fable\" because it is not only a cautionary tale, but because it is the most redemptive of all our popular myths: it is a love story, set in an impossible situation, and involving two highly mismatched lovers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d46c369db7a5460f9c40d3ca3e6d88c7", "input": "Review: ... It even beats the nasty \"raw\". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4066641170c420988037cd0f7911353", "input": "Review: I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6509a60a92654055960bb06eb27e5c71", "input": "Review: IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like \"My friends are going to be so jealous!\" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e9b9160816e4202bfcac6a58332dc25", "input": "Review: There's something about every \"Hammer\" movie I see that really takes me into a new fantasy world. In the world of \"Hammer\" movies, anything can happen. \"Guardian of the Abyss\" is one of those types of movies. It adventures deep into the occult and hypnosis to bring a different type of horror fantasy. All in all, an unforgettable movie. 7.5/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d806f3eb98a24245b50db640655556bb", "input": "Review: A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee5da05de5c94145a2e3b97a1bb106fd", "input": "Review: I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him \"Who are you?\" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf35fb342f944bb79f976ebb0dcff0ed", "input": "Review: I saw this movie about a week ago and still keep thinking about it. I was very moved by this movie. I found the characters very believable and likable almost to a fault. As in real life though sometimes people disappoint, as was the case with Leo, who even though I liked his character I could not have been more disappointed when he was willing to have unprotected sex even though fully aware of his HIV status. I was also disappointed with Leo for rejecting the medicine available to him, and the awful way he treated Marcel when he decided to ship him back home on the train. I think this movie showed in a very real way why HIV numbers are up in young gay men. This is in no way meant to bash gays (I am gay) and movie very well could have been made about a young straight person who makes bad choices and seems unaware of the consequences to himself and others. The only part of the movie I couldn't understand was why the (gay friendly) family was unwilling to include Marcel in Leo's illness to the point of not allowing him to go to the funeral.I think the biggest message from this movie is that whether gay or straight is DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54a9ee95032243b1bfb50e70338cd974", "input": "Review: Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a \"stunt double\". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-498eaa31117c4d79b3a5a0f8d380edd3", "input": "Review: \"Pandora's Clock\" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked \"Pandora's Clock\". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's \"Frasier\"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.*** (out of four) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f05396388944eaa831d3a28685df1e0", "input": "Review: For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7671eaf2c57649ed8dbb56faeb0a5d85", "input": "Review: Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a0a99b7e315440794bee3c60bb75148", "input": "Review: Big splashy film of the Broadway music. Nathan (Frank Sinatra) loves to roll the dice and organize illegal crap games. Blonde loving Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) wants to marry him IF he gives up craps. He decides on one last game when Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando!), who bets big, is in town. He bets Sky that he can't get mission worker Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. That may sound like a strange plot summary but so is the movie!This is a real mixed bag--there's some wonderful stuff here. The songs are all good and the dancing is incredible. The real show stopper is at the crap game at the end. Also Brando is really quite good here--it might seem strange to think of him singing and dancing but he pulls it off. I have to admit seeing big, bulky Brando pulling off some difficult dance moves was a lot of fun! Also Sinatra is pretty good and Blaine is just wonderful as his long-suffering girlfriend. Her song and dance numbers are definite highlights here.Now for the bad parts--Jean Simmons is a wonderful actress but she's stuck with a drab colorless role and can't do much with it. The movie is far too long at 150 minutes--the scenes between Brando and Simmons really drag and should have been shortened. Also most of the characters speak in very precise English--contractions are never used. Maybe it's trying to be amusing coming out of the mouths of gangsters but I found it jarring and it kept throwing me out of the movie.It's worth catching for the songs and dances but the over length of it does get to you after a while. I give it a 7. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3a72162376b450aa4f091a78d41b1f9", "input": "Review: This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.I think the title says it all, \"spirit\". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end. Enjoy \"Spirit\" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3768bc3ea1145d3a5985ae972f15574", "input": "Review: This is one of the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2842248e43d5425e98b996764b981ea4", "input": "Review: When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with \"The Wedding Banquet\" and \"Eat Drink Man Woman\" a few years ago and then moved on to \"Sense and Sensibility\" and \"The Ice Storm\". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called \"bushwhackers\", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider \"Jewel\" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the \"southern gentleman\" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's \"great\" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48655db084d642108bb694ed3a7d73ed", "input": "Review: Errol Flynn is \"Gentleman Jim\" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a \"shanty Irishman\" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e755f6d69e04d25b836f415ef49b1aa", "input": "Review: An enjoyable Batman animated film. Not on par with \"Return of the Joker\" or \"Mask of the Phantasm\", but solid nonetheless. I liked how the movie kept you guessing as to who Batwoman was. There was nice twist. Nice action sequences. I've always been of the opinion that the Batman cartoons are better then any of the pitiful Batman live action film sequels. The trend continues here.7.5 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f487375d402443519930a18a0aa9a8ca", "input": "Review: For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbc4c79e8ff34534a031289445ad5070", "input": "Review: \"Pandemonium\" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. \"Airplane\", \"The Naked Gun\" trilogy, \"Blazing Saddles\", \"High Anxiety\", and \"Spaceballs\" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. \"Pandemonium\" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, \"Scream\" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?*1/2 (out of four) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-115c72c1d0ca489986cd2fe025334570", "input": "Review: Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,\"Paulie\". I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into \"Born In East L.A.\" When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves. While Cheech Marin's character \"is\" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion. 8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc5c308e77c74ec993b3e7263c29ca89", "input": "Review: This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary \"An inconvenient truth\" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called \"EARTH\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-84478a3a293b485db1c69cfc1e35b15b", "input": "Review: The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this \"thing\" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1faffedf31814cc8b1d6c8c547474fb9", "input": "Review: First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51f2294db8d1427ab00de4ce9c1cc5e0", "input": "Review: The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. \"Life's dramas\", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. \"The Perfect Son\" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddab41da4d5c4c32ab888e1522478ce0", "input": "Review: A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping \"executive vice-president.\" Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c19cd976b184937a17ae88e39e5808b", "input": "Review: A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9837404365e042c29004f5e6e6f34b6f", "input": "Review: I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01181ff8e9384a00b24ed03a2f83c307", "input": "Review: This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-77bb89eacf074cbe9420e155ae123a22", "input": "Review: I found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.Torn, in the end I judged it a 7. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6afe3b197b0486994450e32ae930cb7", "input": "Review: I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f882056525074f8e8b137a3ccfa156de", "input": "Review: end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e748fc98de14f27899010ade6a39123", "input": "Review: very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30d8bccf35f64759a3136a4498353ebd", "input": "Review: Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.Many have described this is a UK version of \"24\", and one can see the similarities. The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.Some people describe weak comedy as \"gentle comedy\". This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.Give me Smiley any day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-64034984881b484c8b2e24a60f8e0494", "input": "Review: Halfway through Lajos Koltai's \"Evening,\" a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: \"Can you tell me where my life went?\" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's \"Away from Her.\" Hollywood might have turned \"Evening\" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of \"Mephisto,\" and director of \"Fateless\" - created a subtle ensemble work with a \"Continental feel,\" the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise \"Evening\" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of \"Evening\" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.As with \"Away from Her,\" \"Evening\" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e316388a81524fc087680b8deddb7263", "input": "Review: After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producerRKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking aboutThe film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbledThe ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's familyThe end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterizationRKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a boreMusic is boringAmitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at timesAkshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hamsAryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenesBhumika emerges the best of the lotThe rest are okay Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fc05153ba4e4ab0aecfb7514c1a6a60", "input": "Review: Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2cdf73c283b84e479de7c5af965ce5c0", "input": "Review: In 1948 this was my all-time favorite movie. Betty Grable's costumes were so ravishing that I wanted to grow up to be her and dress like that. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., was irresistible as the dashing Hungarian officer. Silly and fluffy as this movie might appear at first, when I was eight years old it seemed to me to say something important about relations between men and women. I saw it again the other day; I was surprised to find that it still did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6c3d09c975c4812ab2b212016030fd3", "input": "Review: This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7baaee61a654e8daa3c10c4119ed31c", "input": "Review: ...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in \"Mordor\", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f25df34c04d04c12b70f21a2c1013a81", "input": "Review: A wonderful movie! Anyone growing up in an Italian family will definitely see themselves in these characters. A good family movie with sadness, humor, and very good acting from all. You will enjoy this movie!! We need more like it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f469e94514424a89b0cec40924a01d7d", "input": "Review: If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the \"respectable\" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d57b41439cb4fdbb8a486d11cbce262", "input": "Review: In the immortal \"Shaun of the Dead\", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. \"Fido\" presents us with an epilogue to \"Shaun\" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original \"what-if...?\" movie.The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic \"boy-and-his-dog\" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his \"pet\" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including \"The Matrix\"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), \"Fido\" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them.\"Fido\" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible \"Shaun of the Dead\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3919f8cbeed47ada8cac73aad9551b6", "input": "Review: Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones (\"Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.\") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves (\"D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement).\"). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, \"It's Anna!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fae23d7601d84371824f8eb88ff6701a", "input": "Review: Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d698021ce4e44116a57e7ecca75c9988", "input": "Review: I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking \"the German dream\" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3af6035eda4843a2acc5000b8661d50e", "input": "Review: The Shining is a weird example of adaptation: it has very little in common with the source novel, written by Stephen King, yet it is widely remembered as one of the best cinematic renditions of the horror master's work. This is due to two factors: Stanley Kubrick's masterful direction and Jack Nicholson's chilly acting.Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a writer who accepts to take care of the Overlook Hotel in Canada during the winter period, unaffected by the gruesome stories surrounding the place: he claims a nice, isolated location is just what he needs to finish his new book. Therefore the Overlook becomes the new home of the Torrance family: Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their five-year old son Danny (Danny Lloyd). The boy in particular senses right from the beginning that something's wrong: he has been told by the cook, Dick O' Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) that he is endowed with a mysterious psychic energy, the titular Shining, which allows people like him and Dick to see flashes from the past and the future, among other things. Because of this \"gift\", the forces that inhabit the hotel immediately take an interest in Danny, even though he is quite capable of resisting them. That is not Jack's case, however, as he gets increasingly paranoid regarding his wife's affections and seeks comfort in the company of what can best be defined as ghosts, triggering a chain of insanity and dread which is very hard to break.The Shining works as a horror movie because Kubrick, though having never worked on this kind of film before, knew exactly what was effective and what wasn't, hence the larger focus on atmosphere and psychological shocks than gore and creative bloodbaths. King criticized the director for changing most of the story, omitting most of the Jack/Danny subplot (merely hinted at in the film) that led to the book's emotionally strong climax, and while his disappointment is valid, the omission was actually necessary: the novel dealt with redemption, albeit in an unconventional way, and redemption is a theme Kubrick, one of the most famous analysts of human decay, never had a soft spot for. What he is interested in is the mental, and subsequently physical, unbalance that threatens the characters, and he keeps the creepy tone even thanks to a very cold approach and expert use of the steadicam shot (Danny's encounter with two ghostly twins being the best example).Another criticism King raised was about the actors, especially Nicholson: in the writer's opinion, his trademark grin at the start of the movie seemed to indicate Jack already was insane, thus undermining the rest of the story. Now, it is true that Nicholson looks a bit goofy from the very beginning, but it is equally true that Martin Sheen (King's ideal choice for the role) probably would not have been able to deliver a performance as terrifying as Nicholson's: from the moment he starts grinning in a more unsettling way than before to the immortal \"Here's Johnny!\" scene, it is impossible to picture another actor playing that part, and even though the TV version of The Shining from 1997 isn't bad the Torrance character is indelibly linked to the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest star. As for Duvall and Lloyd, both add terrific support, the latter especially deserving a place alongside Harvey Stephens (The Omen's Damien) and Haley Joel Osment as cinema's great horror child icons. One might complain about Duvall being completely different from the book counterpart (blonde and beautiful) and not having much else to do but scream and run, but two things ought to be considered: a) back in 1980 the \"scream queen\" cliché wasn't one yet; b) rarely has any actress looked so genuinely terrified on camera, making the book-movie differences secondary compared to the real fear that emerges from Wendy's eyes.Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting, once said there is no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation of any literary work (and he should know, given the liberties Danny Boyle took when his junkie masterpiece was brought to the screen), yet that doesn't mean the movie is necessarily bad. The Shining proves said point to perfection: very little from the novel, approximately 5%, is included in the film, but in Kubrick and Nichlolson's hands this masterclass in loose cinematic translation becomes one of the finest, most original horror pictures of all time, which really is saying something given the genre's current poor form. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28a61b9ab07a4afba55f03fc11ef402f", "input": "Review: R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other… Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35…. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin… Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The \"Satyagrah\" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e495fa53dc424dbc894455568edfbd92", "input": "Review: This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e52c4e4049540fb9f81ce5a547081fc", "input": "Review: I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9798a5831074330b2638ba541936b21", "input": "Review: SPOILERSTom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into \"others.\" Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d51448c4b57642688cafeb3371010c86", "input": "Review: How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.Patrick Watson Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-473cfb9a23fa425c9a691e39a23434f7", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4dfd958cb214da995b90fcf64eafeca", "input": "Review: These are excerpts from a nine-page \"Memo to Mr. Cohn from Mr. Welles\", written after Orson had seen studio mogul Harry Cohn's edited version of the picture (he took an hour out): \"...The preview title music was written by a first rate composer, George Antheil. Although not written for our picture at all, this temporary title music had an atmosphere of darkness and menace combined with something lush and romantic which made it acceptable...The only musical idea which seems to have occurred to this present composer (Heinz Roemheld) is the rather weary one of using a popular song--the \"theme\"--in as many arrangements as possible. Throughout we have musical references to \"Please Don't Kiss Me\" for almost every bridge and also for a great deal of the background material. The tune is pleasing, it may do very well on the Hit Parade--but Lady from Shanghai is not a musical comedy...Mr. Roemheld is an ardent devotee of an old-fashioned type of scoring now referred to in our business as \"Disney\". In other words, if somebody falls down, he makes a \"falling down\" sound in the orchestra, etc., etc...If the lab had scratched initials and phone numbers all over the negative, I couldn't be unhappier about the results...Just before I left to go abroad, I asked Vi (Viola Lawrence, the editor) to make a cut which would involve dropping the near accident with the taxi-cab and also quite a bit of dialogue. I am convinced that this would have been an excellent cut...saving much needed footage in the slow opening sequence (this was not done, accounting for the main weaknesses of the film's opening reel)...There is nothing in the fact of Rita's diving to warrant a big orchestral crescendo...What does matter is Rita's beauty...the evil overtones suggested by Grigsby's character, and Michael's bewilderment. Any or all of these items might have inspired the music. Instead, the dive is treated as though it were a major climax or some antic moment in a Silly Symphony: a pratfall by Pluto the Pup, or a wild jump into space by Donald Duck...There is no sound atmosphere on the boat. A little wind and water is sorely missed. There's no point in photographing a scene on a real boat if you make it sound as though it all happened in front of a process screen...At the start of the picnic sequence...in the temporary score, we used a very curious, sexy Latin-American strain...This has been replaced with a corny \"dramatic\" sequel--bad stock stuff...This sort of music destroys that quality of strangeness which is exactly what might have saved Lady from Shanghai from being just another whodunit...There is a big musical outburst after Grigsby's line, \"I want you to kill him.\" This is absurd...The Hawaiian guitar music which comes out of the radio...was supposed to be corny enough to make a certain satirical point. As it stands now, it's on about the same level as the rest of the scoring. Nobody in the audience could possibly suspect that we're kidding...The aquarium scene needs more echo. \"Please Don't Kiss Me\" is in again!...A bad dubbing job and poor scoring has destroyed the character of Michael's run down the pier. From the gunshot through to the phone call, a careful pattern of voices had been built up with the expenditure of much time and effort. For some reason, this has all been junked in favor of a vague hullabaloo. As a result, the whole sequence seems dull...The audience should feel at this point, along with Michael, that maybe they are going crazy. The new dubbing job can only make them feel that maybe they're going to sleep...The gun battle with the breaking mirrors must not be backed with music...The closing music again makes reference to \"Please Don't Kiss Me\"...This finale is obvious to the point of vulgarity, and does incalculable injury to the finish of the picture.\"All of these edits from Orson were ignored Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33d28c982d6c40c39e506ef70b374a0d", "input": "Review: Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0417d80b29546e1995ef09865816418", "input": "Review: When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the \"Sesame Street/Muppets\" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone \"I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic\"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says \"I think we're engaged now\"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway \"wink wink\" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on \"kid-level cheesy\" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw \"10\"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-721aa4c1f61149209194af058cbc5c63", "input": "Review: First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c642a6ea29b4570be0454c3e71c3b4b", "input": "Review: I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69db630034b74c51aca2feacc87b92f9", "input": "Review: When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical \"love thy neighbour\" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d41783cd8ea46cb880235315373f52a", "input": "Review: In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e15de177e13e493bb63be6950bfb04b9", "input": "Review: Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f302e2a9d3494624a19c142f731359bd", "input": "Review: Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-defd391378e54a0da0930fd248e178d4", "input": "Review: I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, \"That's it, that's the end?\" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ebffceac6604d31ad29875f136c54e8", "input": "Review: Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the \"Walking with Dinosuars\" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.I also think this weakens the great \"Walking with Dinosuars\" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ab141b969934122837832292a5f4017", "input": "Review: If you like occasional nudity with junior high school level slap stick comedy, then look no further.Starting at about the halfway point, the beautiful and erotic Arielle Dombasle starts disrobing at every opportunity. That is the only thing that made this movie worth watching.The story is both lame and preposterous, the humor is corny, and character development is basically non-existent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff45ea35354f4be18a6c14bf1952cc21", "input": "Review: The author of \"Nekromantik\", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, \"Der Todesking\" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called \"The Brotherhood of the 7th Day\", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely \"normal\" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, \"art film\" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.The main theme of the movie, \"Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III\" was released in a limited 666-piece 8\" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting \"The Nekromantik\" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca3e1d2570c749288575fddd0e318776", "input": "Review: ***Might not consider this having a spoiler, but I'd rather be cautious than careless*** I never saw this movie when I was little. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it with my three year old daughter. I can watch it over and over again.For the little acting Ilene Woods did in her lifetime, she was a wonderful voice for Cinderella; very appealing; very believable. The music really fit the movie perfectly. The acting was great; loved the mice!! You really \"hated\" Lady Tremain and the step-sisters; they were just awful. The cartoonists depicted the spoiled behavior very well.This is a wonderful movie, especially if you are into love stories. My daughter has seen the movie about 25 times and still gets excited at the end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e5aa13bcc2d4ba0a3372425ff12c89a", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the \"ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9370d51c71664817b30526c28bfee2a7", "input": "Review: Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f5d8957c8b7446cbfc921babe7f7609", "input": "Review: If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.Arthur Lowe is a real treat!I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcb40240d85f43baaf62afdb5a5e7997", "input": "Review: It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-069f96315a7b49e58a83167fec3aed10", "input": "Review: One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, \"Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes..\" Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30c86436be744ea185bd021ea49d3d80", "input": "Review: You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f45268c238af45689e74375b6b53c1d1", "input": "Review: While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching \"Lost\", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1—the one with the polar-bear—and it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster.\"Lost\" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchingly—what drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But \"Lost\" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of \"Lost\" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) – these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot. About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) – well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.But assuming the writers do pull this off, \"Lost\" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.9/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dd345bb1d4e40f193d50661603cfd03", "input": "Review: This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07e2cc7a2bd5418ab2e19cfb3ae8287e", "input": "Review: The first ten minutes of \"Just Looking\" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like \"Kids\" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. \"For Better Or Worse\" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3049010cd0794338a79d781763bbad94", "input": "Review: After having seen a lot of Greek movies I feel very suspicious against most of them. But after watching this I felt astonished. The movies is great without a big try. You cannot claim that the screenplay is so great or the photography is perfect or something technical. It's a real story and it is happening in Greek rural areas in places forgotten from God. The movie is like a punch in the stomach and I would really wish that things are not like this. It obviously talks about the xenophobia of the Greek people (the ignorance)to anything different. The problem of this guy is not that he is an ex-convicted. The problem is that he is not one of these people. He is different and they do not want them (that's why all the good things he is doing turn boomerang to him). And also speaks about the apathy of the people, because there are some people who are against the hunting of the King, but they do not dare to say their opinion. In the end you can clearly see the hypocrisy of the society being religious and trying to act like God says, but at the same time acting so unfairly to the King. This shows how easily people rationalize their feelings or their beliefs according to the established system. In the end you can have a positive lesson from this very bad story, meaning that you can understand and be part of this society only if you want to become one of them. If you want to remain different and even alone, you are lost (and it is not far from reality) I think it is tragic that the story is real and this should be a bell for everybody. No comment for the main actor because he is already given an award and I believe that his play was great. Small comment for Hatzisavvas (plays the policeman), he is like a dinosaur, he has played a lot of roles and I'm sure that this role for him was very easy but he plays it so great that you cannot deny him a big bravo. I definitely recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good Greek movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-723622a360564edba5bf43cf5c918ed3", "input": "Review: THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie. I say \"supposedly\" because the title of the movie does not have the \"V\" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).The plot is simple – a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here. Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called \"so bad, they're good\" movies. However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a \"so bad it's good\" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill. The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget. But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them. But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).The characters in this movie are not likable at all. Most of the band members are aggressive foul-mouthed morons or just downright weird. No one really cares about what happens to them, and even their supposed friends forget about them when they've been dispatched. The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!). He spouts some really funny lines for no apparent reason. But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation. Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking. Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation. As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all. There are plenty of over-the-top outbursts (mainly from the male characters) and one nearly results in a full-blown fight. In fact, the format could be said to go as follows: characters walk around--murder takes place--characters walk around--murder takes place. You get the idea.The dialogue is terrible and it seems that few lines are spoken without the f-word being used. Perhaps this was meant to be funny, but it just comes off as sad. And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all. The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger. A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons. They make little attempt to get out of the factory or find a weapon with which to protect themselves. And much of the time, they don't even pretend to be scared.In the same vein as DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, the killer is not seen at the time the murders are being committed (with the exception of the final murder when the killer's identity is revealed). A random weapon appears out of nowhere to kill the victim in question. There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time. In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock. The extras look uncomfortable dancing to it. The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.Don't misunderstand the points made in this review. This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH). But, it seems that THE CHOKE tried too hard to fit into one of those categories without fitting into either. And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes. But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie. And fans of the classics such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH should do everything in their power to avoid it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb17f8f396d24061b58c77e6387ca3bc", "input": "Review: I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. \"Gone with the Wind\", \"Gettysburg\" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even \"Gettysburg\" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written \"Jack\" instead of \"Jake\" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become \"bushwhackers\" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e30e325cccef4d51a3cc10f8606e4831", "input": "Review: I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-236f9b3e93b642829f469261a24816dc", "input": "Review: It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a533048290f4420a85f862d5a034637b", "input": "Review: clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. \"hula\" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend \"hula.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e38605138db94615b11cca50569345fd", "input": "Review: Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of \"super soul,\" the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-176cc3d7ca5746f584ddfb8614f2e7ec", "input": "Review: Sorry Fulci fans, but I could not get through this one. The soundtrack was about as annoying as they come, the acting was puerile, the story has been done and done, and the direction was non-existent. Massacre honestly looked like a children's film project. But I've seen some of those, and they actually look better than this did! It appears to have been so underfunded they couldn't afford ... ANYTHING! Not a DoP, not a director, no one who even remotely had a clue what acting was. It was a very poor cinematic experience; one of my worst.This was about the worst suck-fest I've seen, next to Terror Toons which is second only to Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I've nothing else to say about it.It rates a 0.1/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6fad9d90be04caf8fde7c8d82d8b733", "input": "Review: When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5db74104c2b643beaf26e473123298a1", "input": "Review: ... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f16121d3b45f419ab681cadca8cdf2cf", "input": "Review: This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask \"why\" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch \"Lord of the Weed\": it's a lot, lot more fun. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2442ff50ab094397aaff98a16f2ea152", "input": "Review: Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the \"smoke monster\", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.See this show. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-93adbaf411494604a89982d323bc1f67", "input": "Review: I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right?? Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52ccef8040794a86b7ecd47551b7ff9f", "input": "Review: While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from \"Kicking and Screaming\" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic \"The Indian in the Cupboard\" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: \"Take me outside, earth grasper.\" From \"Grey Owl\": \"If you don't like it, you don't have to watch.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18eb950f6c4e4ff8ab85cca79932913e", "input": "Review: I saw \"Paris Je T'Aime\" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The \"stories\" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.There were only two \"successful\" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, \"Paris Je T'Aime\" was an awful cinematic experience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82ea153c52e04daabf87168fe7fa152d", "input": "Review: This film is a great example of fine storytelling. The acting is superb. The story is inspiring without being overly manipulative or fake. There were a couple points where they probably made people a tad more good or bad than they really were, but considering it is a Hollywood movie, they showed amazing restraint. There wasn't a single explosion shown in the movie, even though they had one opportunity to. The film, while having suspenseful parts, was not made into an action movie. The story is thus made to focus on an extraordinary man in unfortunately ordinary times. Well done! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-324b7ea2cb4a4d07ad90b97d8ad52386", "input": "Review: The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10ab38c418444ace9c5bd82ea6030b75", "input": "Review: This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf477d764a4c4559916e4b18899c7ade", "input": "Review: Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7961250d9ce249fb98fd6ed13f07d1eb", "input": "Review: Linking story: another first-time viewing for me and, again, this is one of the most popular of the Amicus anthologies - and it's easy to see why, though I realize how the film's rather meaningless title could be misleading for some; I certainly fancied director Peter Duffell's choice - DEATH AND THE MAIDEN (which, incidentally, is a classical piece by Schubert that is heard in the film during the Peter Cushing episode) - a great deal more. Though the linking device itself is not all that great, the episodes are all equally compelling and enjoyable. Production values come off as very respectable indeed for the budget Duffell had to work with. The latter infuses the film with a great deal of style which is not so common with this type of film and, frankly, it makes one regret the fact that he wished to distance himself from the genre (though more so as not to be typecast rather than because he felt it was beneath him).Now to the individual stories themselves: \"Method For Murder\": the opening segment does not offer any real surprises but, to make up for this, it's quietly suspenseful and appropriately creepy at times (Tom Adams' 'fictitious' villain looking like the long-lost brother of Boris Karloff from THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932]); also, it ends with a satisfactory DIABOLIQUE-type twist, and features a fairly intense role for Denholm Elliott in the lead. That's all we need out of it, really.\"Waxworks\": for the second story we are introduced to a curiously romantic mood which is quite unusual for this type of film; Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland are both excellent (as well as impeccably dressed) in their roles of two jilted lovers of a woman who continues to obsess them even after such a long time, and whose friendly rivalry can only lead them blindly and inexorably to a fate that is literally worse than death; an ominous hallucination scene with Peter Cushing is quite well done in view of the limited resources at hand, and Ackland's inexplicable inability - or unwillingness - to leave town somewhat recalls the house-trapped aristocrats of Bunuel's THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962).\"Sweets To The Sweet\": this is perhaps the finest episode of all - with his ambiguous role here, Christopher Lee continues to demonstrate his versatility and he is matched by an understanding Nyree Dawn Porter and the deceptive innocence of Chloe Franks (who appears as Lee's daughter). The film's treatment of the occult here is both subtle and mature, culminating in a powerful and extremely chilling 'curtain'. Trivia Note: Chloe Franks appears as a grown-up in the featurette included on the disc, and when I saw her I felt an immediate familiarity with her face but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Later, on reading her filmography, it was revealed to me that she had played one of the leads in the long-running stage adaptation of Agatha Christie's \"The Mousetrap\" in London's West End, which my brother and I were fortunate enough to catch while we there on holiday in the Summer of 2002! Needless to say, we had no idea then that she had once created such a delicate - and delicious - portrayal in sheer evil, mainly by virtue of her peculiar look and a devilish smile!! \"The Cloak\": a wacky but oddly reverent vampire tale (that still manages to debunk many of the myths attached to the subgenre, while inventing some new ones!) which takes in some wonderful digs at exploitation cinema and, at one point, Christopher Lee himself!; Jon Pertwee is marvelous as the campy horror star who gets more than he bargained for when he attempts to bring a measure of authenticity to his work; Ingrid Pitt sends up her image nicely though her role is somewhat subsidiary to the proceedings; Geoffrey Bayldon (made up to look like Ernest Thesiger) also has a memorably quirky bit; the 'silent-cinema' style of the ending was a pretty audacious one to pull on an audience, I suppose - and, while some of the humor comes off as heavy-handed a' la THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967) or THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973), it's also rather infectious and certainly ends the film on a high (and highly unusual) note! Video and audio quality are relatively satisfactory, considering I had no other version to compare it with; the main culprit is some noticeable print damage but this is never so nasty as to affect one's enjoyment of the film. As for the extras, beginning with the Audio Commentary: frankly, this is one of the finest chats about a genre film that I can remember listening to; Jonathan Rigby gets to butt in with his opinion more than is usual for a moderator but his effort certainly allows director Peter Duffell to touch on every aspect of the production (whereas with some other films, you're left rather expecting there to be more!) and, as such, it's an extremely pleasant track that complements the main feature very nicely indeed. The featurette \"A-Rated Horror Film\" is a worthwhile effort with Peter Duffell again at center-stage but this time backed up with valid, if all-too-brief, contributions from producer Max J. Rosenberg and stars Chloe Franks, Ingrid Pitt and Geoffrey Bayldon. We also get film notes, reviews, bios and a poster/stills gallery which, again, are wonderfully assembled (with the contemporary reviews being something of a novelty - and a welcome one at that). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dc5139f02954cad9b1b6725c4ae4231", "input": "Review: Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40da6a70c5f6410a866d7b2d93653892", "input": "Review: My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the \"C\" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the \"F\" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aeae25054d9e46ccbdbd6c04602d8453", "input": "Review: Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays \"Ashenden\" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is \"at war\" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29630f8b34614ea58503d80ecb5f53e1", "input": "Review: This, \"Prodigal Son\" and \"Eastern Condors\" are my favourite Sammo Hung films. The Fat Dragon is fatter in this outing than he was in \"Condors\", but he's no less sure-footed as director or actor. He is, in fact, at the top of his form and delivers a devastating, brutal actioner that boasts half a dozen amazing sequences and manages to tell a compassionate, sweet love story also. Love and romance are not the director's priorities here, but they serve as curious adjuncts to the action, and insure that viewers don't hit the fast-forward button between the physical clashes.The opening scene, which features a funny light sabre duel, sets a solid but deceptive tone. A sequence in which Sammo's pedicab is chased by a car is beautifully staged and sweetened with a sharp, comic tone. The fast and furious stick fight between Sammo and Lau Kar Leung is a model of dazzling choreography and sharp, superb direction, and easily one of the best ever of its type. The film's violence escalates slowly until, finally, when the climactic showdown comes, we are subjected to some of the most brutal altercations ever seen in a Sammo production. The director/actor's assault on Billy Chow and a house filled with angry, menacing opponents is a bone-cracking, physically punishing delight.Terrific on every level and one of the best martial arts movies ever made.Great score, too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-074a2a804531446584f701c81159ae29", "input": "Review: A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until \"Moonlighting\" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, \"Graduate\". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-716b3effcd8446759e8793bb1a9d1ec4", "input": "Review: What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0655fdbd709041bb9d838aa3ae544888", "input": "Review: i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of \"movie\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b73e51d28304ec398e2fe8d66c5c961", "input": "Review: They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-579d78a97e14447799cb06a4f6570194", "input": "Review: Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.Still my wife thought Liam was cute. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-32d08b22904b4ce1877095f4fa214794", "input": "Review: This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. (Possible spoiler warning) The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic \"caveman meets fluffball\" yarn, where a \"charming\" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's \"wit\" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e799885a4d346e881f3b029eea37671", "input": "Review: \"Bend It Like Beckham\" is a film that got very little exposure here in the United States. It was probably due to the fact that the movie was strongly British in dialogue and terminology and dealt a lot with football, (soccer here), which some may have trouble relating too in the U.S. It's unfortunate because this movie is absolutely fantastic and deserved much more coverage over here. I think the basis of the storyline, (following a dream), is something many people can relate to and in the end, \"Bend It Like Beckham\" proves to be a good-feeling film with a source of inspiration and really good acting. I was not overly excited about seeing this film initially but now I regret not seeing it sooner. I highly recommend this movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-481ae0ed01234d10893a42bd9698bbd3", "input": "Review: In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled \"weepies for women\",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed \"written on the wind\" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:\"tarnished Angels\",\"A time to love and a time to die\",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally\" Imitation of life\"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in \"imitation of life\",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a16adc0f3984fd094d39c6bdd233616", "input": "Review: Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.This was one of the \"youth\" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44c9b8e9db9c4e8286ee8d54ac21fb01", "input": "Review: At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66fbc36701de451db880506a06fc32bf", "input": "Review: Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6ce6910b3524c8e96e2a0b3b19c47e9", "input": "Review: I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say \"Hey my watch has stopped\"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f66e28f4416e4dbca84046e2fdec5907", "input": "Review: This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-93380be8483f45a9b504d9fd5624e18d", "input": "Review: Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-772fe6919e20458cb65c01a6d1329470", "input": "Review: (spoilers?)while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time. I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.8/10Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-164fb6056b384a53baaa117aa49a6fa6", "input": "Review: This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little \"Science Lesson\" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82d596d3f49f4bf9b65c3a4745e2c5fd", "input": "Review: I saw the omen when i was 11 on tv. I enjoyed the Trilogy. So when the chance to finally see one at the cinema came around i didnt pass it up. I went in to the cinema knowing that what i was about to see wasnt a cinema release but a made for TV film. However being a fan i couldnt resist. But this Omen movie which i saw at a midnight screening didnt bring chills it brought laughter. Risible Dialogue such as \"it is written that if a baby cries during baptism they reject there god\". What nonsense.No decent set pieces. Faye Grant so Good in V is wasted with this script from hell. No suprises and no fun. However i did laugh out loud several times at our bad it was.Truly Pathetic.1 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32fa887d475f456192ea9ad5fae2d84e", "input": "Review: I know, I know, \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" is the worst movie, or maybe \"Manos, the Hands of Fate.\" But I can't get worked up over those sock-monkey movies. Of *course* they're bad. How could they be any good? But if you're talking about movies with respectable production values and bankable talent, the T. rex of all turkeys has to be \"Yentl.\" All the treacly phoniness, all the self-absorbed asininity, that stains everything Barbra Streisand has done since 1964, reaches its culmination in this movie. From its lonely summit of awfulness, \"Yentl\" looks back to \"A Star is Born\" and forward to \"The Mirror Has Two Faces.\" There is nothing else quite like it. What emotional undertow dragged Streisand out to make this movie I would rather not speculate, and what audience she was playing to I cannot possibly imagine, although I'll bet there's a nine in ten chance you aren't a member of it.Nobel Prize-winner and saintly guardian of Yiddish literature Isaac Bashevis Singer was so outraged by what Streisand did to his story that he blasted her in public for it. It is a tribute to Streisand's impenetrable vulgarity that she not only didn't commit suicide, but went on to make more awful movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b1095a69cfa4a4caa76a4892260ebe8", "input": "Review: In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled \"weepies for women\",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed \"written on the wind\" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:\"tarnished Angels\",\"A time to love and a time to die\",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally\" Imitation of life\"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in \"imitation of life\",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2ee639c43414c339a6883a1544a8cd1", "input": "Review: A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f42dbf0e13a4964bff13b241ef035c0", "input": "Review: The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f29c2b10a8f84f97be8ecaa51cdbde2a", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff52de5f3dba49e292eb60edf431173e", "input": "Review: Vertigo co-stars Stewart (in his last turn as a romantic lead) and Novak elevate this, Stewart's other \"Christmas movie,\" movie to above mid-level entertainment. The chemistry between the two stars makes for a fairly moving experience and further revelation can be gleaned from the movie if witchcraft is seen as a metaphor for the private pain that hampers many people's relationships. All in all, a nice diversion with legendary stars, 7/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c1859ef82ce4e9e8d876e72f49476c2", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of \"The Sixth Sense\" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08969fe57bca4847bc3cf11ab3855fa8", "input": "Review: This film would usually classify as the worst movie production ever. Ever. But in my opinion it is possibly the funniest. The horrifying direction and screenplay makes this film priceless. I bought the movie whilst sifting through the bargain DVD's at my local pound shop. Me and some friends then watched it, admittedly whilst rather drunk. It soon occurred that this wasn't any normal film. Instead a priceless relic of what will probably be James Cahill's last film. At first we were confused and were screaming for the DVD player to be turned off but thankfully in our abnormal state no-one could be bothered. Instead we watched the film right through. At the end we soon realised we had found any wasters dream, something that you can acceptably laugh at for hours, whilst laughing for all the wrong reasons. We soon showed all our other friends and they too agreed, this wasn't a work of abysmal film. This was a film that you can truly wet yourself laughing at. This was a film that anyone can enjoy. This was genius. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70afaaf118a7459f84afbf80cb7d22e7", "input": "Review: With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23a900d2f48d452bb514d89b4975ac61", "input": "Review: As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells \"the Shape\". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit). Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dac3870b7fd041d098858454e65016b4", "input": "Review: I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ad94a33d7554aaaa7b60b152d7e8f18", "input": "Review: This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called \"Green Death\", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, \"gruesome\". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this \"fight\" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the \"bad guy\" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8e58611d3244c79ad674d7fbaeaa2ae", "input": "Review: Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba914e74f30e4941b0ad64f5bb8dc67e", "input": "Review: The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f98fe5561d9f4b0e896617a4aee73689", "input": "Review: As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5fd30e4bd4046f69248942324a51a5c", "input": "Review: This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky \"fixer\" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-92718591fc104d52866e6b2d210092ed", "input": "Review: I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key \"thrilling\" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The \"horror\" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the \"special effects\" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5823a486afa646e49319a3af8b7c5ab9", "input": "Review: One of the best records of Israel's response to the murder of Rabin.Extremely true and natural, it captured the spirit of the nation.Especially important was the response of young people to the trauma of Israel's loss and the feeling that we shall overcome. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68731878b7a345998015876191148d9f", "input": "Review: \"Heartland\" is a wonderful depiction of what it was really like to live on the frontier. The hard work and individual strength that were needed to survive the hardships of the climate and the lack of medical care are blended with the camaraderie and the interdependence of the settlers. The drama was especially meaningful because the story is based on the diaries of real people whose descendants still live there. It was also nice to see the west inhabited by real people. No one was glamorous or looked as if they had just spent a session with the makeup or costume department. Conchatta Ferrell is just wonderful. She is an example of the strong, persevering people who came to Wyoming in the early 20th century and let no hardship stand in their way of a new life in a new land. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cdb0a4a2515c4ee7bd39c8270214f9c9", "input": "Review: I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.[spoilers follow]Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, \"He's finally snapped\" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, \"He drowned in his pool last night\" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62d3baca5902410d88453f659f0aef3b", "input": "Review: I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of \"Byron\" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was \"mad bad and dangerous to know\", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.I think the BBC lost its nous with this one Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52424f959a2e4ec199d706ca458102e0", "input": "Review: Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series \"X-Files\"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba7d00c1ce9d464f81e967d199e1841c", "input": "Review: Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for \"MST3K\"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This \"Hamlet\" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-efe858766aba49e0a8aeadcfc273875d", "input": "Review: the movie is far more sophisticated and intelligent is its exploration of sexual tension than such American attempts as 9 and a half weeks...the courtroom scene itself...with the couple copulating in the cage while the heroine pleads for their orgasm...is amazing...I have not seen this movie in 20 years...but it made indelible pictures in my mind...it is rich in texture and successful in creating a world where sex is the engine for all activity, and at its bottom is the yawning angst that lives in us all....the plot is European, and it meanders a bit, but so does life...especially when you are 17 and have a constant hard on.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5fed956181043bd8187ef4f09add647", "input": "Review: \"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey\" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like \"Old Yeller\", \"Napoleon\", \"Fluke\" and \"Air Bud\". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.Can this possibly be just a \"remake\"? It is too good to be a \"remake\"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama. The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in \"Old Yeller\"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great \"actors\" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.This should definitely be on Top 250. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16702aa14b314c39878c06adbe27873f", "input": "Review: The Shining is a weird example of adaptation: it has very little in common with the source novel, written by Stephen King, yet it is widely remembered as one of the best cinematic renditions of the horror master's work. This is due to two factors: Stanley Kubrick's masterful direction and Jack Nicholson's chilly acting.Nicholson plays Jack Torrance, a writer who accepts to take care of the Overlook Hotel in Canada during the winter period, unaffected by the gruesome stories surrounding the place: he claims a nice, isolated location is just what he needs to finish his new book. Therefore the Overlook becomes the new home of the Torrance family: Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and their five-year old son Danny (Danny Lloyd). The boy in particular senses right from the beginning that something's wrong: he has been told by the cook, Dick O' Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) that he is endowed with a mysterious psychic energy, the titular Shining, which allows people like him and Dick to see flashes from the past and the future, among other things. Because of this \"gift\", the forces that inhabit the hotel immediately take an interest in Danny, even though he is quite capable of resisting them. That is not Jack's case, however, as he gets increasingly paranoid regarding his wife's affections and seeks comfort in the company of what can best be defined as ghosts, triggering a chain of insanity and dread which is very hard to break.The Shining works as a horror movie because Kubrick, though having never worked on this kind of film before, knew exactly what was effective and what wasn't, hence the larger focus on atmosphere and psychological shocks than gore and creative bloodbaths. King criticized the director for changing most of the story, omitting most of the Jack/Danny subplot (merely hinted at in the film) that led to the book's emotionally strong climax, and while his disappointment is valid, the omission was actually necessary: the novel dealt with redemption, albeit in an unconventional way, and redemption is a theme Kubrick, one of the most famous analysts of human decay, never had a soft spot for. What he is interested in is the mental, and subsequently physical, unbalance that threatens the characters, and he keeps the creepy tone even thanks to a very cold approach and expert use of the steadicam shot (Danny's encounter with two ghostly twins being the best example).Another criticism King raised was about the actors, especially Nicholson: in the writer's opinion, his trademark grin at the start of the movie seemed to indicate Jack already was insane, thus undermining the rest of the story. Now, it is true that Nicholson looks a bit goofy from the very beginning, but it is equally true that Martin Sheen (King's ideal choice for the role) probably would not have been able to deliver a performance as terrifying as Nicholson's: from the moment he starts grinning in a more unsettling way than before to the immortal \"Here's Johnny!\" scene, it is impossible to picture another actor playing that part, and even though the TV version of The Shining from 1997 isn't bad the Torrance character is indelibly linked to the One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest star. As for Duvall and Lloyd, both add terrific support, the latter especially deserving a place alongside Harvey Stephens (The Omen's Damien) and Haley Joel Osment as cinema's great horror child icons. One might complain about Duvall being completely different from the book counterpart (blonde and beautiful) and not having much else to do but scream and run, but two things ought to be considered: a) back in 1980 the \"scream queen\" cliché wasn't one yet; b) rarely has any actress looked so genuinely terrified on camera, making the book-movie differences secondary compared to the real fear that emerges from Wendy's eyes.Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting, once said there is no such thing as a completely faithful adaptation of any literary work (and he should know, given the liberties Danny Boyle took when his junkie masterpiece was brought to the screen), yet that doesn't mean the movie is necessarily bad. The Shining proves said point to perfection: very little from the novel, approximately 5%, is included in the film, but in Kubrick and Nichlolson's hands this masterclass in loose cinematic translation becomes one of the finest, most original horror pictures of all time, which really is saying something given the genre's current poor form. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4f062baaf2f48efbb4d514282791a7d", "input": "Review: My first review of 2010 is \"Into The Blue 2: The Reef\". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13b8d71b2d82479ab9b19a9aceb44d56", "input": "Review: Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since. Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4588688cf0164d01b0ac25b87da4753d", "input": "Review: I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30f64409e4914cdea6e78798ee28027c", "input": "Review: I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state \"Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify????? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dda72f4199dd4599910eb705fcefd4c6", "input": "Review: Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the \"last\" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72b68c255c304ccb9711e888e760aa4c", "input": "Review: They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel \"The True History of the Kelly Gang\" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d1f135a1a7b42279ae71b9f63007ed3", "input": "Review: First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a \"B made for TV movie\" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5098ad55702644c3af0343398a5c15ae", "input": "Review: SPOILERS AHEADThis is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, \"Flashlight!\" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, \"oh yeah!\" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8899fc1c8b6c46faa6cf146a1165a5f9", "input": "Review: I am so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fec5c0de66704721b0a617ada11cee8a", "input": "Review: Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a68eb1bd26646c4b2a007c192ffb2ff", "input": "Review: When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7624b87d4df348319d2f7cccb151c8d3", "input": "Review: I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c5514edeb434c7a9783bec906a17a69", "input": "Review: Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fe31dae6f6a4b9a9a405be9be522383", "input": "Review: \"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.This said-to-be follow-up to \"The Thirteenth Guest\" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d71c33d28d574973b6f0c977ea230f5a", "input": "Review: Another rape of HistoryThis movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e95e4295b4cc4392924f6b8039c25795", "input": "Review: Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a1cc9209b5e4708b85ab3e5b7e0052f", "input": "Review: I just watched Holly along with another movie about trafficking and child sexual exploitation called Trade at Film by the Sea international film festival. I have to say that Holly blew Trade out of the water. Holly is a powerful and amazing film on many different levels. From purely an artistic and cinematic perspective, it is amazing. The sound-mixing, camera angles, directing and acting are all spot on. Additionally, the way it handles the subject matter is tasteful and non-exploitative. It presents the issue of child sexual exploitation in a way that is both educational and accurate. The filmmakers paid an exquisite amount of attention to detail, truly capturing the nuances of the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and trafficking. Too often when dealing with a subject matter of this kind, it is tempting to shock the audience with graphic scenes of rape, and violence. Holly is able to achieve all of this without falling into that typical Hollywood trend. I've had the pleasure of seeing Holly at two separate film festivals, once in the US and once in Netherlands. I can honestly say that I have never seen audiences more moved. Just listening to conversations after the screening, people are asking what they personally can do to fight child sexual exploitation. I highly recommend it to everyone, both for its cinematic value and its subject matter. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fee84cb0d1d44a449083454922c3a3f0", "input": "Review: If you fast forward through the horrible singing, you will find a classic fairy tale underneath. Christopher Walken is very humorous and surprisingly good in the role. His trademark style of acting works well for the sly Puss in Boots. The other actors are well for their parts. I did not find any of the acting terribly fake or awkward. The king in particular appears a real dunce though, and I wonder if he is supposed to be. I can not remember the original tale. The special effects are typical of the eighties, but at least they are not overly fake like some of the computer generated fare that we see today. Overall, I recommend this movie for children and adults who are a child at heart. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e4778677f8343c9a24173a16b8a0813", "input": "Review: Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-40cf682a7c9646ad9321cb1384504839", "input": "Review: First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't clichéd, pretty solid really.overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-638a8cc890ad43558ad2797b2e487662", "input": "Review: A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af4c7ad7e5064dc49c6d1681c6eacd92", "input": "Review: David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9f0ca88556342cc9e768550c33a0474", "input": "Review: As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original \"Frankenstein\" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a336dcbd120449e9d1bd4f0236a2ce4", "input": "Review: Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01de0b77afdd4ac9a0e5ace7c7c94de0", "input": "Review: He now has a name, an identity, some memories and a a lost girlfriend. All he wanted was to disappear, but still, they traced him and destroyed the world he hardly built. Now he wants some explanation, and to get ride of the people how made him what he is. Yeah, Jason Bourne is back, and this time, he 's here with a vengeance.OK, this movie doesn't have the most elaborated script in the world, but its thematics are very clever and ask some serious questions about our society. Of course, like every Hollywoodian movie since the end of the 90's, \"The Bourne Suprematy\" is a super-heroes story. Jason Bourne is a Captain-America project-like, who's gone completely wrong. In the first movie, the hero discovered his abilities and he accepted them in the second one. He now fights against what he considers like evil, after a person close to him has been killed (his girlfriend in \"Suprematy\") by them. That's all a part of the super-hero story, including a character with (realistic but still impressive : he almost invincible) super powers.And the interesting point is that the evil he fights all across the world (there's no frontiers in the Bourne's movies, characters are going from one continent to another in the blink of an eye), is, as in the best seasons of \"24\", an American enemy, who's beliefs that he fight for the good of his country completely blinds him. Funny how \"mad patriots\" are now the N.1 enemies of paranoiac Hollywood's stories.Beside all those interesting thematics, the movie isn't flawless : the feminine character of Nickie Parson is for now on completely useless and the direction is quite unoriginal when it comes to dialogs scenes. But all that doesn't really matter, for \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" is an action movie. And the action scenes are rather impressive.Everyone here is talking about the \"Waterloo scene\" and the \"Tanger pursuit\" and everyone's right. I particularly enjoyed the fight in Tanger, that reminds my in its exaggeration and craziness the works of Tsui Hark. Visually inventive scenes, lots of intelligent action parts and a good reflection on American's contemporary thematics : \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" is definitely the best movie of the series and a very interesting and original action flick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-617fe333d6d84f88b5acf3c5ec38cc1b", "input": "Review: Honestly, I find this film almost too depressing for my own good. It is VERY depressing until pretty much the very end. There is no way I can justify passing judgement to any character who did things I didn't like (well, except for the disgusting character played by Fredrick Forrest). But it's still so frustrating to see people behaving this way, putting up walls around themselves when just a word or so could break the ice and promote healing.A horrible tragedy strikes a Montana family. They believe they've lost one son, but it turns out they've lost 2. The key is, if they just communicate and face their grief together, they won't end up losing their second son permanently.But they just can't. Something is blocking this family from sharing their sorrows. Some family retreat into silence and resentment while certain others point fingers of blame (and then go ahead and cheat on their poor pregnant wife by seducing the pretty girlfriend of the deceased...that Andy character truly is a snake!) The only member of the family that isn't threatening Arnold in some way is his Grandpa (Wilford Brimley). Grandpa seems to be able to speak to the boy without judgements or even kid gloves. He seems to know what the child is thinking about even though Arnold isn't saying much these days. It is truly a blessing for the poor kid to have that one someone he can turn to. No one else seems to grasp the fact that Arnold might be in shock, in denial, or that his way of grieving may not be the same style, or at the same speed, as they would expect. It's so easy to judge and to be angry and to feel someone is \"made of stone\" just because they don't grieve in a way we believe they ought.The story is very quiet and naturalistic. You're not going to get some spoon-fed narration or some Hollywood feel-good resolution. I was very concerned by the fact that this child was so burdened with guilt that he felt it necessary to hitchhike several hundred miles to apologize to that piggy Andy's wife, for something he should not blame himself for. Arnold may have accidentally killed his brother, but nobody is responsible for the end of that marriage, which apparently was a lousy one anyway, except for the two people in the marriage. It's only dumb luck Arnold didn't get into the car with a pedophile or a murderer.Robert Duvall and Glenn Close are frustratingly effective as the parents who somehow cannot find it in themselves to communicate with their son, to find out what Arnold is going through. Jason Presson, whom I've not seen anywhere else except for a childhood favorite called EXPLORERS and a creepy ghost story called THE LADY IN WHITE, did an incredible job as Arnold, a great performance from a child actor.Aside from being somewhat slow at times, THE STONE BOY is an excellent, and very depressing movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2197842c04e34a98942b422ed9f3bb60", "input": "Review: It is a Frank Zappa axiom that \"music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read.\" If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: \"Wow.\" (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of \"knowing your history\", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that \"present conditions\" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual \"Return to Glory\", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f78d30ad0ef4aa5a9ce60b788b96295", "input": "Review: Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a866268a38b45ddac3fa8c43b24adba", "input": "Review: The first of the official Ghibli films, Laputa is most similar to its predecessor Nausicaa, but whereas Nausicaa was a SF epic, this is more of an action comedy-adventure with a fairly weak SF premise.For the first half hour of the movie I thought I was going to love it. Once again you find yourself in awe of Miyazaki's attention to detail, and his ability to conjure up an imaginary world in meticulous, beautiful perfection. The animation, though still not in the league of the later Ghibli films, is a little better than in Nausicaa.I mentioned in my review of Nausicaa that one character is drawn in a more 'Lupinesque' anime style. Here there are a whole bunch of them: the pirates. They provide the comic element in the film, though quite why it needs a comic element I'm not sure. There was nothing funny about Nausicaa, and I think it was better off for it. Still. having said that, Dola, the pirate leader, is easily the most memorable character in the film (even if she's basically a female Long John Silver. Don't be surprised if you're reminded of 'Treasure Planet' at times) and is well voiced by Cloris Leachman in the American dub.The English voice cast acquit themselves well for the most part, actually. However something started going pear-shaped for me about this movie by about the halfway mark. I think the best way that I could describe it is that the characters get swallowed up by the vast scope of the story. I'll come back to that later.There is so much to admire about Laputa, and so many people obviously love it, that I almost feel mean for only giving it 8 out of 10, but for me the operative word here is 'admire'. It was more impressive than personally affecting, and at over two hours it just started to drag.The crucial thing for me was this: I really found that I didn't care much about any of the characters. Disney would have taken the care to develop the characters, make you really fall for them, rather than leave them as relatively two-dimensional pieces to be moved around while you gawked at the amazing vistas in the movie. Even that would have been tolerable if there was some hard SF in the story to make up for it, but it was basically a lot of gobledegook about Princesses and magic crystals. That's where Laputa falls down as far as I'm concerned, and that's what holds it back from being a potential 10 out of 10 movie. Having said that, it must be admitted that Miyazaki was leagues ahead of Disney in general in 1986, when you consider that their movie of the same year was the pretty dire 'Great Mouse Detective'.Laputa is a good film in some ways an amazing film, and you should definitely see it, but I do feel it's over-rated. I definitely prefer the earlier 'Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind'.BTW, if you manage to watch them in chronological order, watch for the fox-squirrel from Nausicaa popping up briefly in Laputa. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-45f0849ea33e48e7903b1563f8fdfc8b", "input": "Review: Not a bad word to say about this film really. I wasn't initially impressed by it but it grew on me quickly. I like it a lot and I think its a shame that many people can't see past the fact that it was banned in some territories, mine being one of them. The film delivers in the shock, gore and atmosphere department. The score is a beautiful piece of suspense delivering apparatus. It only seems fair that Chris Young went on to be one of the best composers in the business. The acting in this film is of a somewhat high standard, if a little wooden in some spots, and the effects are very real and gritty. All of this is high praise for a good slasher film in my book. I've noted in some reviews that the film has gotten serious flack having the famous killer's P.O.V shot. And I ask: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? It is a classic shot that evokes dread into any good fan of the genre and is a great to keep the killer's identity a secret. The only thing that stops this film getting top marks in my book is that the surprise twist(killer revealed) is not handled with more care, I mean it just happens kind of quickly, though the great performances make it just about credible. Aside from that PRANKS is a great movie (though I prefer the original title) and its a shame that so many people knock it off as just a cheap piece of crap. Its more than that, but only few know that as it seems to have gotten lost in the haze of early 80s slasher. What a shame.... Its a really good movie people! Believe me! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54ac69fa1b754a99a2a9c260ccdcb96f", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create \"nothing\", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef8f6a74cc19465ca9831423e6e7a116", "input": "Review: Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining \"Honey I Shrunk the Kids\". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from \"Honey I Shrunk the Kids\".Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d55d91f9b684b2abf62ab2d1e8836fa", "input": "Review: I saw this gem of a film at Cannes where it was part of the directors fortnight.Welcome to Collinwood is nothing short of superb. Great fun throughout, with all members of a strong cast acting their socks off. It's a sometimes laugh out loud comedy about a petty crook (Cosimo, played by Luis Guzman) who gets caught trying to steal a car and sent to prison. While in prison he meets a `lifer' who tells him of `the ultimate bellini' – which to you and me – is a sure-fire get rich quick scheme. It turns out that there is a way through from a deserted building into the towns jewellers shop – which could net millions. Sounds simple? – well throw in all kinds of wacky characters and incidents along the way and you have got the ingredients for a one wild ride!! – word passes from one low life loser to the next and soon a team of them are assembled to try and cash in on Cosimos `bellini' lead by failed boxer Pero (Superbly played by Sam Rockwell – surely a star in the making) and reluctant crook Riley (William H. Macy) who is forced to bring his baby along with him as his wife was locked up for fraud!!.Based on the Italian film I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna street) which also inspired a similar film to `Collinwood' – `Palookaville'. This knocks spots of the latter effort and although its written and directed by the Russo brothers it definitely has shades of the Coen Brothers about it. Produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, who has a small yet hilarious part as a crippled safe breaker. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-df6813dd6f7c4041b3c60322a0dbf19d", "input": "Review: This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ecb188aad374a2892252bfde8d8e707", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was stunning, with completely outstanding performances by Valentina Cervi (Artemisia Gentileschi).Cervi portrays Artemisia so beautifully, with tentative yet confidant mannerisms, her hands mapping out an idea before moving her models into place. The passion to which Artemisia gives to her art is just spectacular to watch.Although not each character was overtly beautiful, this made the film more realistic as the facial hair and clothing was perfect for that point in time.Overall i thought this film was fantastic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fc018795ee2428484bea53cf7afa7cc", "input": "Review: Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e920cabfe89242eeb2c7ac23226601b7", "input": "Review: Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c39bf56426d143ab985d25ffaa4296e6", "input": "Review: Since was only a toddler when this show originally aired I just recently picked up the DVD set and am wishing there were more episodes filmed. This show was a 70s version of the poplular 90's TV series \"X-Files\"- but with a bit more of a comedic/light hearted approach. But don't get me wrong, some of these episodes have full on horror themes, many in which have some pretty greuesome plots (left to the imagination of course- this was the early 70s television).Some of the plots where a bit silly as well as the acting, but that is the charm and attraction to this series. Whether you like mystery crime dramas, comedies, or sci-fi/horror themes, this series brought all that together. Each episode clocked in at around 50 minutes or so (1 hour with commercials) and that 50 minutes goes by quick always leaving me wanting more. A great classic show that is underrated in my book! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0095fbff80f4c9abe3d9dcb52ae532e", "input": "Review: It was in 1988, when I saw \"The Ronnie and Nancy Show\" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially \"The Ronnie and Nancy Show\". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself \"I need a shave\". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b509fec5c2945ab8ba4a013be946b57", "input": "Review: Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81351be077ec4e8790a22aa7a8df3912", "input": "Review: I had several problems with the movie: (1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7328134a71e94c93a4644284370aa13b", "input": "Review: This is a thoroughly diabolical tale of just how bad things can go wrong. A simple robbery. Pick up some serious change. Get our finances together and everything will be hunky-dory. But—mom and pop's jewelry store? No problem. Insurance pays for it all. No guns. Nobody gets hurt. Easy money.Older, more successful (it would appear) brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has a few minor problems. Heroin addiction, cocaine habituation. A wife (Marisa Tomei) that…well, he can't seem to perform for. His flat belly days long gone. Younger, sweet, slightly dim-witted younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) with a few dinero problems of his own. Behind in child support payments for his daughter, in debt to friends and relatives, not exactly wowing them in the work of work, etc.Sydney Lumet, in this performance at the age of 82 (!), directs and gets it 99.99 percent right, which is hard to do in a thriller. I have seen more thrillers than I can remember and most of the time the director gets the movie printed and lives with the plot holes, the improbabilities, the cheesy scenes, and the hurry-up ending. Here Lumet makes a thriller like it's a work of art. Every detail is perfect. The acting is superb. The plot has no holes. The story rings true and clear and represents a tale about human frailty that would honor the greatest filmmakers and even the Bard himself.Hoffman of course is excellent. When you don't have marquee, leading man presence, you have to get by on talent, workmanship and pure concentration. Ethan Hawke, who is no stranger to the sweet, little guy role, adds a layer of desperation and all too human incompetence to the part so that we don't know whether to pity him or trash him. Albert Finney plays the father of the wayward sons with a kind of steely intensity that belies his age. And Marisa Tomei, who has magical qualities of sexiness to go along with her unique creativity, manages to be both vulnerable and hard as nails as Andy's two timing wife. (But who could blame her?) It's almost a movie reviewer's sacrilege to give a commercial thriller five or ten stars, but if you study this film, as all aspiring film makers would be well advised to do, you will notice the kind of excessive (according to most Hollywood producers) attention to detail that makes for real art--the sort of thing that only great artists can do, and indeed cannot help but do. (By the way, I think there were twenty producers on this film—well, maybe a dozen; check the credits.) All I can say in summation is, Way to go Sydney Lumet, author of a slew of excellent films, and to show such fidelity to your craft and your art at such an advanced age—kudos. May we all do half so well.Okay, the 00.01 percent. It was unlikely that the father (Albert Finney) could have followed the cabs that Andy took around New York without somehow losing the tail. This is minor, and I wish all thrillers could have so small a blip. Also one wonders why Lumet decided not to tell us about the fate of Hank at the end. We can guess and guess. Perhaps his fate fell onto the cutting room floor. Perhaps Lumet was not satisfied with what was filmed and time ran out, and he just said, \"Leave it like that. It really doesn't matter.\" And I think it doesn't. What happens to Hank is not going to be good. He isn't the kind of guy who manages to run off to Mexico and is able to start a new life. He is the kind of guy who gets a \"light\" sentence of 10 to 20 and serves it and comes out a kind of shrunken human being who knows he wasn't really a man when he should have been.See this for Sidney Lumet, one of Hollywood's best, director of The Pawnbroker (1964), The Group (1966), Serpico (1973), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Network (1976), and many more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46e8417daf3a43b9bf1d565c595748b2", "input": "Review: I loved \"The Curse of Frankenstein\" so much that I rushed out to get \"Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed\" to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of \"If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all\"? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the \"creature\", and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.Also, there are virtually no \"horror\" elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of \"letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show\", but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few \"horrific\" elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did \"Curse\" back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch \"The Curse of Frankenstein\" and see a truly great Hammer horror film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-553fbe6e0def47858a335c94c1c03024", "input": "Review: I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3b8ae44bd0349e29373e473e6eeccb2", "input": "Review: What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across \"Quite Ugly...\", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.I obviously had too much faith. Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.I dread to think what's going to happen with \"Country Of The Blind\" if this is the benchmark...Please, just avoid it... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37e9cc233def4caa897996d4cf0e21ce", "input": "Review: I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving \"funny\" moments in the beginning.But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.{SPOILER}Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18d8f46d6891403c810e438479eb43cd", "input": "Review: Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d774b96d5aa4d448c62c2e04d7d86cd", "input": "Review: This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c08dd4f54717407f85599c592cd664f0", "input": "Review: I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go \"What the f*ck did I just see?\" All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like \"The Grudge\" or even \"Silent Hill\". What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12e465f5374c408bb8c3a70d9b2861ea", "input": "Review: the movie is far more sophisticated and intelligent is its exploration of sexual tension than such American attempts as 9 and a half weeks...the courtroom scene itself...with the couple copulating in the cage while the heroine pleads for their orgasm...is amazing...I have not seen this movie in 20 years...but it made indelible pictures in my mind...it is rich in texture and successful in creating a world where sex is the engine for all activity, and at its bottom is the yawning angst that lives in us all....the plot is European, and it meanders a bit, but so does life...especially when you are 17 and have a constant hard on.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64c4ccd8cd2c4ec2aa214e03a7e90e85", "input": "Review: Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of \"teenagers\" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly \"gynoid\") the Alienator.From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably \"Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers\"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as \"Tara\"), obviously at a low point in her career.Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is \"Quadrant 5\"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an \"alienator\"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from \"Blade Runner\", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.If \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f2f61e0f5fa458fa385811729d3d2be", "input": "Review: This is the magnum opus from the Swedish king of crap, Mats-Helge Olsson. Seldom has a movie of this magnitude been made in Sweden and it truly stands out as one of the most amazing achievements in Swedish film to date. Who pays for these things? The Russian nuclear scientist Markov wants to defect to Sweden. But his plans are ruined by the Russian military who kidnap him and tell him that he has arrived in Sweden. This trickery is their way of seeing to that Markov continues his work in nuclear physics that will revolutionize the energy supply for the whole planet. The CIA however is bent on getting Markov to the west and send their ninja to liberate him.The practice of having Swedish actors speaking English is something that Mats-Helge has perfected in his later works. The cheap b-movie feeling this creates is probably unmatched for performance. But besides this? Well the action is standard direct-to-video style. Machine guns firing huge clouds of smoke. Thousands of Russians dying. People running around in black ninja suits, trying to hide in the snow.What really stands out though is the insanely poor way the fighting scenes are choreographed. When they say \"Ninja\" in the title i expect martial arts, i expect close combat. But there are maybe two or three scenes of actual martial arts in this movie. And they are hilarious. It's so bad i lack the words to describe it. If the ninjas moved any slower their hearts would stop. And of course the whole movie ends in a bang that indicates a special-effects budget consisting of four food-stamps and a McDonald's voucher.So what's the verdict? Instant classic of course. Never before has a movie been made that is so obviously meant to be consumed along with huge amounts of alcohol. It's the ultimate party movie. Insert into video and laugh. One just has to realize that movies like these are not made any more. This is film history.Therefore the rating is 8/10 for entertainment, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for accents. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a692ebcd8384295ba58a70481b4ea59", "input": "Review: The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will \"get it,\" it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with \"Jesus is Magic\" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4832aec0e6f470ba5a8c80eb2207316", "input": "Review: I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6766ff2eeb24e26a4127bad276cdf08", "input": "Review: Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6eef45f8fad841f2bab143303b5e2267", "input": "Review: I noticed \"Fire\" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-348c7479c5324229b4944f6f17ee0d52", "input": "Review: I had the privilege of watching \"Holly\" at the Edinburgh Film Festival last week. What a powerful and moving story! Holly is a 12 yr old Vietnamese girl who is sold into prostitution by her own family and living in a brothel in Cambodia. Patrick (an American) comes into Holly's life and decides he wants to help her. When Holly is sold again, Patrick desperately searches for her. We follow they're difficult journey through Cambodia and hope for their reunion.Holly is one of millions of children who are sold and trafficked every day. The movie portrays this difficult issue without crossing the line. I walked away wanting to know more about the issue of child trafficking and asking how can I help? This movie should be seen by everyone because it is a beautiful story and it exposes an issue that we should no longer ignore. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aed317bc819b401e8be027a69d401ec0", "input": "Review: I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a \"thumbs in the middle\" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see \"no character development\", above).And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.1) Joker gasses people.2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.3) Batman saves the day.Pfeh.There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the \"Think Thank Thunk\" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than \"I've Got Batman in My Basement.\" I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with \"B\" and rhymes with \"fastardization\". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-745314ac17c2434783990212115fa045", "input": "Review: The wonderfully urbane Ronald Coleman is show-cased here as in few other of his films. He is literally in every scene and this comical movie remains fresh because of him, not in spite of him. He is handsome, witty and very clever here as he remains a step ahead of his wandering, lovely wife--played perfectly by Anna Lee. The movie is based on a french play and brings all the best qualities of that farce. Most of the supporting cast is well known, at least by face if not name...and are absolutely perfect for this very funny film. The fantastic Mr. Coleman is a combination of Sean Connery and Clark Gable as he stays a step ahead of the other characters. His multi-talents can be further appreciated in the classic \"Lost Horizon\" which every film buff must see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e73d7cf634ec494bb512a8b1c178d65c", "input": "Review: This is probably one of the worst \"wanna be a low budget hit films\" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the \"super fast\" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ba83a6627664d0f8e8ee5542e379406", "input": "Review: As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said \"I have to watch this movie\". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her \"job\", as the \"no action\" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is \"disgustingly\" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is \"trash; no offense\", he answers \"I don't take it like an offense\". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter \"not so bounty\", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), \"the correctional institutes he's been\", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born \"without the shirt\"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is \"inspired by true story . . . more or less\", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been \"added\" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be \"edulcorated\". The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only \"con\", in a movie with a lot of \"pros\". All in all: This isn't \"SWAT\". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just \"Gamble\" and \"Street\"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a322ae2072f466488892189a7856dee", "input": "Review: Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his \"collecting trip\" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b535623d3aa42ec9c179af0eb0699ca", "input": "Review: In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2303f1f23eff40fd8becc48ff88a06f0", "input": "Review: I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond \"art\". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a735c81a851b4a71aa2452d904df17ff", "input": "Review: This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as \"Serie Noire\", \"Buffet Froid\", \"Beau Pere\", all realized by Blier.However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are \"going places\", but the title in French could be literally translated by \"the waltz dancers\", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de6510d60b8448a7bc6726e8bb20c7b8", "input": "Review: Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say \"The Emperor has no clothes.\" When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved \"Morse\" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new \"Inspector Lewis\" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.And as for his \"sidekick\" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.I'm sorry to say that they should have left \"Morse\" rest in peace. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc3d21ff45124c598cc3c7fbe67d475a", "input": "Review: A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-196be5ce591d4acd8ef3a72dcfacf7e0", "input": "Review: Although I had seen \"Gymkata\" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of \"Parmistan\" to enter and hopefully win \"The Game,\" a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like \"Yak Power.\" The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e25fc9e2c01a4c1293e089fe413e38c9", "input": "Review: We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea0a7f39d26e4eebb7e5bf746ad3f794", "input": "Review: When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter. That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07f40223ae5c4de49095ae890c807617", "input": "Review: Let me being by saying the I followed watching this video by watching Saw and after Bleed, Saw looked like the all time greatest horror flick ever even though I thought it was only fairly good. Bleed is pretty bad. The best part is seeing the female cast nude. The gore is very fake looking and over-done. It has its funny parts but its extremely predictable and I didn't want to stay to see the horrible ending. If I could, I would ban these actors and actresses, the only reason being is that Debbie Rochon (Maddy) has been in over a hundred other videos and I've also seen two other members of the cast in equally or worse motion pictures. They should not allowed to continue this madness. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cd046ec7b99419393447215aad083f3", "input": "Review: It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.My rating: 1/5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8629efd8921c4ddca2d24565d8d7dd55", "input": "Review: Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the \"romance\" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including \"You've Got Mail\", the recent update of \"Shop\") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2045b24bfbfc46c08fad80cae5b9c25e", "input": "Review: This is one of the few episodes (if not the only one) with an indisputable error in its storytelling. While handling the Ralphie situation Christopher states that he has heard about Pie-O-My's death in the fire accident. This is an important detail because in this context it is quite obvious that Christopher knows from the beginning that Tony is the one who must have killed Ralphie. There is however no way Chris could have heard about the accident. Who should have told him and when? By the time he is torn out of his delirium by Tony's call nobody else was informed. Tony knows that - which makes it even worse! Hearing Christopher talk about Pie- O-My's death could therefore only lead Tony to the conclusion that Chris himself has set the fire. Given the impressively elaborate writing process as told by the writers themselves on the DVD I really wonder none of them realized the problem there. The story just doesn't work that way. Unnecessary to add that I'm a huge fan of the Sopranos. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't care. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95928c88e79548e6a21898345a79eaf0", "input": "Review: Thank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as \"Skate Fu\" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58fad2d625dd4c4eb230b7e6a39ff86e", "input": "Review: I just viewed the film two days ago, and I was filled with anticipation, being that Paris is my second favorite city in Europe and I spent a very romantic 18 months there in the '80's. I was somewhat disappointed that most of this group of vignettes, while original and artistically done, did not capture the \"light\" and beauty of the city very well.Nor enough of the romance! We saw none of the tree-lined boulevards... There was too much darkness, not only literally but figuratively. Some of the plots manipulated the viewer it seemed, and let him/her down \"flat \"(the Marais sequence, the coiffure salesman sequence, to give two examples). The uplifting, good ones: The Mime sequence, the cemetery, the Montmartre (though it left too much to the viewer to comprehend), the \"Cowboy\" vignette ,and the Sacre Coeur-- seemed few and far between, and I would have liked to have seen such a wonderful actor as Orlando Bloom be in something that would have showcased his originality more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7bdd96eaf4a4683bfdf741074a53102", "input": "Review: This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95ccf7def32941dea0f7f98c08347a39", "input": "Review: I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-097c1d63eb2a48448711efd273aa73d4", "input": "Review: So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e6d7c1bae364930b07fe63545ca830b", "input": "Review: The cast was good, and I thought it was a good performance from Christopher Lloyd, whom I like from previous movies. The movie was a great family movie, nothing that would make you worry to show it to younger kids, a good story line, lots of laughs, lighthearted and enjoyable. If you want to entertain children without being bored to tears this fits the bill. Kid pleasing, and not difficult for a parent to watch, either. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e71b9cae6f7b4e1d9bc7853aaf9350b2", "input": "Review: I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d3602fb60a641a481c0857c00ea383b", "input": "Review: An average TV movie quality, totally formula story of religious fanatic (Ron Perlman, who gives good \"I'm not just the President of 'Psychos R Us,' I'm also a client.\") who gets control of a biochemical virus (think the virus from the movie \"The Rock\"). Too bad for him that he also gets stuck in a bank building during an earthquake with bank robbers and the government agents trying to stop him (led by the impressively physiqued, mildly entertaining Wolf Larson, backed by Fred Dryer) along with the standard \"in the wrong place at the wrong time\" spunky female (the forever bland Erika Eleniak) and \"lived as a wimp but died as a hero at the last minute\" male (Brandon Karrer). Has the standard background story to give sympathy to the religious fanatic (wife and son killed in a police raid a few years previous). Basically a decent rainy day movie.Favorite line, spoken by Ron Perlman after he finds the vial of the virus hidden in Erika Eleniak's cleavage: \"A woman and her mystery.\"Worth a rent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcbbf1eb111d4e2eb722390c4f7534c5", "input": "Review: Full Moon High (1981) 3 of 5 Dir: Larry Cohen Stars: Adam Arkin, Ed McMahon, Roz KellyTony (Arkin) is your average ordinary high school guy. Prepping for the big homecoming game, girlfriend trouble and growing hair in strange places…you know the usual. But the hair in strange places part gets a wee bit out of control when a trip to Transylvania with his father (YES! McMahon) leaves him with a wicked case of the furballs. Now doomed to walk the world forever young as a werewolf how will Adam get any girls?'Full Moon High' is not often talked about but it is a silly and entertaining horror spoof. Larry Cohen (Q the Winged Serpent, The Stuff) incorporates as many gags as he can possibly come up with as writer / director. Arkin (H20: Halloween, 20 Years Later) shows nice timing in the lead role. If you happen to be a fan of spoofs like 'Airplane' and 'Student Bodies' I think you'll have fun with this chuckle-fest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3de296b031a44a9db8c9ad2bfd079553", "input": "Review: Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3451d73317124a5faaa849e8ffdf5709", "input": "Review: This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fecc0b520fb4baa85f79d696a9ea175", "input": "Review: This amazing Oscar winner (4 in total) and John Ford's first Academy Award winner, is simply spellbinding with a pounding score by Max Steiner. Called an Art film, because Ford had very little money to make this great story about guilt and retribution, and greed and stupidity. But what makes this movie such a classic, is the direction and astounding photography and use of fog and lighting, that was so different from the usual American film, and more in the tradition of German expressionism. And the Oscar winning performance by Victor McLaglen as the drunken Gypo is simply unbelievable. Basically the movie takes place in Ireland, and Gypo turns in a friend in the rebel movement to the English to collect 20 pounds to give to his girlfriend. But having all that money, he starts blowing it on an all night drunk and giving it away, while the leaders of the movement are trying to track down the informer. The whole movie is one night in a dark and foggy Ireland, and a cast of characters that are memorable but all along, the whole world of Gypo is closing in on him, both psychologically. If I had to pick maybe three directors to have ALL their movies on a deserted island forever, and nobody elses, John Ford would certainly be one of them. What a truly remarkable movie... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd4da79166994d5490510f65c5e02e40", "input": "Review: I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only. By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fd5207848f34ddab41f4b3d3a73dfac", "input": "Review: I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title \"Grey Matter\". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching \"Grey Matter\".I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a \"Scientific b*tch!\". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that \"scientific b**tard!\". It just sounded very awkward to me.Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3deae2f6f56941f0baee2fb0ff0de5ba", "input": "Review: Being a genre film fan, a child of the 80's AND a fan of hard rock music...this movie holds a special place in my heart. It has everything you could want in a supernatural movie: action, great special effects (for 1986) and a guitar wailing glam- rock soundtrack. It certainly was THE movie for all the heavy metal fans at the time. I didn't see this at the cinema because it was never released theatrically over here...but it's popularity on video during the mid to late eighties secured it's cult status and eventually led to a (sadly, mediocre) DVD release in 2002. If you're not a fan of creepy movies or rock music then this probably isn't your cup of tea...but, trust me, there are worse films of this type out there...and, despite average acting and some outrageously ridiculous situations, Trick or Treat is most definitely a wailing riff above the usual horror fare. You'll never look at your stereo the same way again. Or should I say MP3 player?TRICK OR TREAT TRIVIA- Marc Price (Eddie) played geeky Skippy Handelman on the popular long running comedy sitcom 'Family Ties.' After a string of direct to video flops including, 'Little Devils''Killer Tomatoes eat France' and 'The Rescue' he gave up on acting to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. Recently, he has been considering a TV comeback.Glen Morgan (Roger) is now a major Hollywood producer/ screenwriter. He has written and produced several major films and TV series, including: 'Space: Above and Beyond''The X-Files''Final Destination''Jet Li's The One''Willard' and most recently 'Final Destination 3'.Tony Fields (Sammi) started his performing career as a dancer on the TV series 'Solid Gold'. He appeared in several low budget films and TV shows before landing his breakout role as the devilish Sammi Curr in 'Trick or Treat'. Sadly, Tony passed away on February 27th 1995 of AIDS related cancer.Doug Savant (Tim) is probably best remembered for his pioneering role of homosexual twentysomething Matt Fielding on the popular sitcom 'Melrose Place'. Since then he has had a long and varied acting career, appearing in such films and TV series as: 'The One''Godzilla''CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' and the short lived Joss Whedon sci-fi series 'Firefly'. Currently he can be seen as Tom Scavo on the smash hit series 'Desperate Housewives'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f6bf3e8cfc24bf89c533c1fa6f5b729", "input": "Review: Perhaps the funniest 'backstage at Hollywood' movie ever, especially for a look at comedy short factories like Keystone.Marion Davies should get a medal for bravery for taking a part where acting poorly in front of a camera is part of the role. Plenty of cameos for film buffs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29fd40892eb549c78cc1a19c25b1f672", "input": "Review: A found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.Yeah, spoiler.First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-24731976c19e45fc85941cd99642e8e1", "input": "Review: This is one of my all time favorites. It is so simple and sweet - definitely a chick flick romantic comedy. I really like a film full of good quotes and this has it... one of my favorites is when Albert Einstein says to Ed Walters \"Are you thinking what I'm thinking\" and Ed says \"Now what are the odds of that happening!\" In my opinion, a film is fabulous if you can watch it again and again and get the same amount of enjoyment out of it, and with this one, you can!! I also really enjoyed Walter M.s way of portraying Einstein. I think all the characters fit together really well and the story flows nicely. There are so many times that I find myself smiling right along with the film and quoting my favorite lines as I watch it! I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a heart and enjoys a feel-good romantic comedy now and then! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-833b87de725342108c157e59d88bec6a", "input": "Review: Back to the roots with \"like it is in heaven\" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone. From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-066744a301244370804cb749761b724c", "input": "Review: Maximally manipulative Anabel Sims (Betsy Drake) sets out to trap her ideal man, aided by her co-worker, Julie. Esteemed pediatrician Madison Brown (Cary Grant) goes from bemused to betrothed in the space of 90 minutes on film, but to the viewer it's all eternity. Can a movie receive less than one star? This one is a prime candidate. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ae1077cb5f84328957d2422fd41350f", "input": "Review: This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86f4a0e55da04e2789331b83ec35da36", "input": "Review: This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, \"I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women\" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.Don't waste your time people. Trust me.My rating: 0/5.0 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15009e0a7fa64adc85ffb6e4783ad605", "input": "Review: I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a \"Christian\" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this \"highly moral\" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01c15463b3f7426c9e3e4a8daa46c81b", "input": "Review: S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market. The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48769c6350c84074b2ad2e702e445942", "input": "Review: This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7891497d8e294857876ee743c1b22c2f", "input": "Review: No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?The better things in this film was the word \"End\".Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive. I've pay ten dollars to buy this.For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.Too bad.Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cd27602b26a45ad8ede6bf185203ba9", "input": "Review: This \"movie\" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be \"movie\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-926ec28f4be647f7ae0acd053c7dcde9", "input": "Review: A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1c265755cc0471b809664289c1efab5", "input": "Review: First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69b09fa03a964039b63671d1891e5857", "input": "Review: Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...Still a good 7/10 for me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e5e5ca044d6489bbc17d6569fdb5dee", "input": "Review: Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are. That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a \"co-director\"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14b5f2c4fdbc44b1814d7a072517bc3b", "input": "Review: This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9186a8c0d1e94bff8f3dbd8114d622da", "input": "Review: My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie \"Frogs\", \"Night of the Lepus\", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in \"Stargate\"!See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes \"Chicken Soup For The Soul\" sound like BF SkinnerFeel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert \"Mike Brady\" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bc0d6ef1c0748d394a67f10c1fa7b3f", "input": "Review: This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being \"dead\" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2b45bfbd2f54bf19c00fb96f3832a68", "input": "Review: This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a87abc8c403405495093ef5f9c517f0", "input": "Review: This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-996d711079764b019c3d6839d89abac5", "input": "Review: Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1f1f99fa940416e9576d4cf8b636238", "input": "Review: Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2444931471414c62b77c04788a6cc861", "input": "Review: I love this movie because I grew up around harness racing. Pat Boone behind the sulky reminds me of my father who was drawn to the trotters because, unlike thoroughbred jockeys, men of normal height and weight can be drivers. Yes, the 1944 Home in Indiana is a better movie, but it's also a very different movie. April Love is light and easy to watch, a feel good movie. (Disappointing though that Pat Boone's religious/moral views prohibited him from ever kissing the girl! Quite a change from today's standard fare.) Home in Indiana with Walter Brennan (filmed in black and white with no hint that anyone will ever burst into song) captures the stress and struggle better thereby making the ultimate accomplishment more satisfying but it requires a bigger emotional investment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c23d1ce1a634b0bb0424224b2df3d69", "input": "Review: Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-902b507792d949dfbc3c5faa87bd6667", "input": "Review: This film quite literally has every single action movie cliche and all of them work to its advantage. Straight from Lethal Weapon Gary Busey wisecracks, shoots and chuckles through this film with such reckless abandonment it can't help but amuse and entertain. There are tanks, helicopters, machine gun battles, grenades and ice cream vans and if they aren't good enough reasons to watch this film then how about the best one...Danny Trejo. And if you don't know who Danny Trejo is then you probably won't like this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc6e7408dfe949cca9b8ea568c9b2299", "input": "Review: Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS \"orbits\" in time around their \"perfect day.\" The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out \"You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?\" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, \"The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it\"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, \"What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?\" and \"You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet.\" The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5955364ecdf4481ca40d409d23ca50b7", "input": "Review: Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21bf73754aa7486b85a7b58055e7f210", "input": "Review: I might not be a huge admirer of the original \"Creepshow\", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. # The first story \"Old Chief Woodenhead\" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. -Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! # Second story \"The Raft\" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. -Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. # Finally number three concludes with \"The Hitchhiker\". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat… and repeat the line, \"Thanks for the ride lady!\" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. In all, the second short story \"The Raft\" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-98170e2f3cec4891b8a18e486ee409ea", "input": "Review: This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates \"One... Two... Three... Four...\" as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7917a5233e0d495ca37d6c55f7d86a97", "input": "Review: Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action \"fuflo\" (a Russian word that means \"bull*beep*\"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the \"Chinese football\" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be \"Star Wars\".Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9db70e56e0cb48fea0581799b77868f6", "input": "Review: OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does \"pick up\"...The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see \"THE BEAST\", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's \"attention\" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A \"shocking\" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8600f384fb79434b97dbb6395bc50159", "input": "Review: I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say \"unexpectedly\" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.\"Victorian era\" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d39bc22ef034457d95db4a38a46560a1", "input": "Review: After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of \"Beowulf & Grendel,\" which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard \"Viking\" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in \"Kingdom of Heaven,\" and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from \"Beowulf & Grendel\"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bde95c7172e943ca940ea271f3ea59fe", "input": "Review: Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ae8f38f9b404fbebbcb7e8cbaca2722", "input": "Review: This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-106e3c14eaf4420fac862da1e5c130ca", "input": "Review: This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23807369d75e4a4f9b6640cafded40fb", "input": "Review: You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d08985dd6724a52965b9bae210e8844", "input": "Review: This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh \"movie\", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, \"Pledge This\" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd273f40cc6149d7b736d033b07b1596", "input": "Review: I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's \"Audition\" and \"Suicide Club\" fame?Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8e28bc856574f999e311c213a10df01", "input": "Review: PROM NIGHT (2008)directed by: Nelson McCormickstarring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davisplot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.An example:Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOLcons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7d1a539a3aa4a69a4dc65c960e616ee", "input": "Review: I cried my heart out, watching this movie. I have never suffered from any eating disorder, but I think this must be a very true picture.Alison Lohman is excellent! She expresses these feelings amazingly well. My teenage years came back to me so vividly. Anyone who has gone through difficult times as a child or teenager will be able to relate to this movie. I recommend you all to see it!The music is great too - I've now discovered Diana Lorden.I'm also looking forward to seeing Alison Lohman in White Oléander, because I am positive she is perfectly suited for the role as Agnes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1793b7523a0a4a4cb73d16e2f1770541", "input": "Review: Though not a horror film in the traditional sense, this creepy little film delivers the goods. It seems a vampire is loose in a small German town draining its victims of their blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschneider, Melvyn Douglas in one of his early roles, is skeptical believing a crazed killer not a vampire is running amok. The only one who believes him is Ruth Bertin (Faye Wray) the inspector's girlfriend and lab assistant to Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who though apparently an eminent scientist goes along with the vampire theory. The townspeople suspect the weirdo Herman Gleib, played with his usual frenzy by Dwight Frye who seems to be having a lot of fun with his role. The film contains quite a bit of humor which helps relieve some of the intensity involved with all the murders being committed. One funny part has Gussie Schnappmann (Maude Eburne), Ruth Bertin's aunt, thinking weird Herman has turned not into a bat but into a dog. Maude Eburne and Dwight Frye make a good comedy team.This budget movie brings in elements from \"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" with Dr. Niemann using the power of suggestion to make a somnambulist carry out his orders, from \"Frankenstein\" by using the human blood to help create life in the laboratory, and \"Dracula\" since the murders are believed by everyone except the inspector and his girl to be the work of a bloodsucker. Thses elements are mixed well by director Frank R. Strayer with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. The concoction works. The restored version I viewed used tinting to increase the spooky atmosphere. So try to see the this version if possible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b13ea352840f48a4864c4884dbf97037", "input": "Review: Now I love American Pie 1 and 2 while 3 was great just for Seann William Scott's performance as Stifler but after that the quality has dropped. Band Camp kept the standard reasonably high with characters you actually cared about but Naked Mile was the same joke and plot- lines recycled (Erik Stifler's sex problem is like Jim's). It had some amusing moments like the Football game against the midgets and the 'punishment' of Coozeman but on the whole it lacked originality and the 'Mile' was just stupid and moronic. Not to mention the irritating girlfriend who doesn't want to have sex. Anyway enough about the Naked Mile. I watched Beta House with apprehension as I thought it could take the series to a new low but I was pleasantly surprised. To be honest there is no real plot but it's filled with hot girls (Ashley is incredible) and sex jokes aplenty. Yes it is formulaic and the jokes are old but Dwight Stifler (Steve Talley) raises the bar with an exuberant performance. The Greek Olympiad is entertaining especially the penultimate and final events while Christopher McDonald's cameo is hilarious. There are weak points though. Coozeman is as irritating as he was in the first, I'm still baffled to as how he ever got a part. While Coozeman is bad Erik Stifler is worse. John White made Naked Mile a pain to watch but in Beta House he takes his performance to a whole new low. First and foremost he lacks charisma, a Stifler prerequisite. You really can't care less about him. The only reason I was bothered about his relationship was so Ashley could be on screen! She shines above him as does the rest of the cast. Seriously John White is the ultimate in bad acting and has about as much charisma as a dead fish. Saying that the film does entertain and Coozeman's fear that his girl is not exactly a girl is brilliantly funny. Overall this film is worth renting, get a few of your mates in and have a laugh at the vomit-fest event and vent your anger at Erik 'loser' Stifler. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f49a55e16e843e49ae39d0e323ecb93", "input": "Review: The movie was a long awaited release, which where a bit disappointing because of the expectation's I had set up. When looking at it again I must say it is actually pretty OK. First of all is it very true to the original history (of course not completely) and is as such only made to keep the right for the movie. Modesty's history as a child is shown and is very true to the original. The acting is perhaps not the best around and the plot is a bit thin, but when you compare it to the 1966 Vitti movie is way better just because it is not trying to be a musical. Generally would I only recommend it to fans of Modesty Blaise or to someone who by catch it on the TV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3e2e2732cf04d04b99f8635ce1af4fe", "input": "Review: We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f838be329b8245cba732430172cbf25e", "input": "Review: This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not \"cheating\" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as \"The Lord of the Rings\". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he \"saw\". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.David Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4244fa0421da47bab40abd5b1849a56a", "input": "Review: When I first got my N64 when I was five or six,I fell in love with it,and my first game was Super Mario 64.And I LOVED IT!The graphics were great for it's time,a good plot,great courses and above all,the best music I heard in a Nintendo game.I don't remember the plot completely,but I think Princess Peach was kidnapped by Bowser,and Mario has to rescue her.The object of the game is to get 120 stars from the curses in the castle.Each had about five or six challnges to get the stars.There are secert parts of the castle,where you can get more stars.But of course,you have beat Bowser.*I think there are three levels to beat Bowser on* Lets start with the characters.Mario is the main character,and gets helpful advice from Toad,so he is basically one of your only alliances.I heard that Luigi and Yoshi are in the game towards the end.The main villain is Bowser,and there are a bunch of other characters like Boo and Goomba.The characters are really great.Next,how about the graphics?People say Gameplay is more important then the graphics,and I agree completely.But with he great plot,there are great graphics.Especially for it's time.I have a whole bunch of other Nintendo games like 007 and their graphics don't compare to Super Mario.Bright colors,great effects and awesome sound effects.I found the graphics in the water courses very very good.Next to the Bowser world ones,it has the best graphics in the game.Now,the music.This is my favorite part of the game.Growing up,when I played this at a young age,I'd gladly leave the game on all night so the music would put me to sleep.Especially the music from Jolly Roger Bay,which was peaceful and wonderful.There are others that are great too,especially in,once again,the worlds with Bowser,are the ones that stick with me the most and are my favorites.This game was my favorite past time as a developing gamer,and I love it.This game gets 10/10 or *****(5)/*****(5) GO PLAY THE GAME! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36562f97ce6b4544894055a134e1fcf6", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc015f2e425e405093252b503db1415d", "input": "Review: This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-efb8d562432e4cf7b56d1b9296ad3644", "input": "Review: but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-439ba8ac3fb44429baab1f420958fbb0", "input": "Review: Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George \"Gabby\" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a \"dual role\". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. *** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7437affca24040e8a70e74283a4d4b80", "input": "Review: I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.Very disappointing. And really corny. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-04a90ad9192a4d2da5199264b15d1a34", "input": "Review: Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on \"I must be high\". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be \"high\" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.With a production team called \"Shock-o-rama\" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered Yours Truly,The General Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-131e56253b3946a89e47b06fe4be1d43", "input": "Review: This is a very moving picture about 3 forty-something best friends in a small england town. One finds a passionate loves and a new beginning with a younger piano instructor, When tragedy strikes and hearts are changed forever. Definitely a film to have a box of tissues with you! A powerful piece of work. This is definitely one of my favorite films of all time.*SPOILER!!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!!*The main character is taken by her young, handsome piano instructor and a passionate romance blossoms. Her two jealous \"friends\" play an immature prank which quickly leads to tragedy. She loses her love and her friends in one foul swoop. In the end a unexpected surprise pulls them back together.(in my opinion her forgiveness is not warranted) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-df54463d9de349e4bed2d1193e01a74a", "input": "Review: Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-edf2d050be574b099206df61455c1ae3", "input": "Review: Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b4c4d769e014ba59e3b1d9a6094ebee", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as \"Glory\" or \"Gettysburg,\" provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George \"Fanny\" or \"Autie\" Custer; Alonzo \"Lon\" Cushing; James \"Beauty\" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.I say this film is \"Santa Fe Trail\" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).\"Fanny\" Custer plays a role in \"Class of '61,\" though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe3df196c23645cba241cec162e4b8df", "input": "Review: Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3dd894cb4ad64b45bc9e3064b58d01d6", "input": "Review: \"Girlfight\" is much more of a coming-of-age-story than it is a fight flick. And what a relief to have one in an urban school, with naturalistic, realistic Latinos and believable use of Brooklyn project settings. It made me realize that virtually all Hollywood high school movies are set in luxurious suburbia or small towns. (Even the somewhat comparable \"Love and Basketball\" which focused on teen African-Americans was set in suburbia.) While these kids share some of the same peer problems, those issues shrink compared to the other struggles of these kids, where high school graduation could be the major accomplishment of their lives.The feminist element here is riveting in its originality, as you hold your breath to see if she can have a relationship--and a victory-- on her terms. A lots of audience sympathy goes to the guy who is challenged to rise to a gender-bending-expectations situation.The movie does drag a bit here and there, but this is no cheap thrills \"Rocky\" fight movie, as the practices and fights have complex outcomes, and all the relationships--especially with fathers and father-figures-- take more center stage than the center ring. There were lots of interesting music credits listed at the end, but I hadn't really noticed the songs.(originally written 10/7/2000) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ee0e3e3caf94920b202985146afe1b1", "input": "Review: Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e09fccba20524fbd97991e047bd110d8", "input": "Review: This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the \"family business\" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!We're treated to a unique story in \"Panic,\" and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e38cd4ce112f45d1879fe0ca05aa6c37", "input": "Review: This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2e8caa3f7ed47808878cf6e30710791", "input": "Review: Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed \"Phone Booth\",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),\"Intermission\",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),\"Blue Crush\",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),\"All The Real Girls\",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4bcd7d468614b70a39788b13c7c0d48", "input": "Review: Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af64b22e253142f7820c3cc0648f475f", "input": "Review: Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a03a56f9d933496c989b5b8ce9d55058", "input": "Review: I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a \"don't do this\" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0202da2a7d92450e9a19099e0fa838ee", "input": "Review: Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d83f7b358b8492db50c67f184d9ed7b", "input": "Review: Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42fe882673a547cb843a78172edd1168", "input": "Review: Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-808c579d2d944274a98073c3ba14b865", "input": "Review: I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5c1c447b8c745dab9bf74e646c28edd", "input": "Review: It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-174f5241e21749bab522aa9ce040ec26", "input": "Review: OK, I knew this would be a back alley F-film (well below B-film standards) going into it, so I thought, \"Man, I could use a good laugh, so let's see some nether-beings kill each other.\" Well, what I got could have been found at your local \"love toy\" store. Random lesbian scenes, very little fighting, and no plot.For example, one scene in particular I remember (for its sheer stupidity only; I've seen better porn on ABC) is where the two main characters (I can't remember their names offhand...great movie, huh?) are driving along, as they mostly did, and the driver was tired of driving and stopped:Driver: \"Let's pull over, I'm tired. You want to take over?\" Passenger: \"Sure, I can drive for a while.\" (Once pulled over, the driver starts grabbing the passenger's boobs) Passenger: \"What are you doing? I'm not like that!\" Driver: \"It's OK, everyone does it sometime.\" Passenger: \"OK then.\" (Proceed to take off shirts, fondle, kiss, and perform fellatio)Now, last time I checked, horror films were not in the porn section of Hollywood Video (unless you're into S&M, then you go elsewhere), and it definitely shouldn't be in the mainstream videos at Blockbuster. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not one of those people who hate porn, but I only watch it when appropriate and definitely don't want to watch it if I'm looking for a movie in the mainstream stores, as this one I rented was at one of the two retailers I named (and probably at the other too if I went and looked).Worst movie ever, no one should rent it, and it should only be bought for a public burning ceremony. If I could give it a 0, I would, but I can only give it a * of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af298f9664fb4f64a5d26fc5cdec9d0b", "input": "Review: Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-63a1144c1a134edf89091ed18029b249", "input": "Review: Kalifornia came out in 1993, just as 3 of the 4 lead characters were up and coming to the levels of fame they now possess in 2006. This is a nice psycho-thriller that should appeal to all David Duchovny fans because of his dry and intelligent narratives that find their ways into his work, like with most of his episodes of the X-Files, Playing God, and Red Shoe Diaries.People who were put off by the heavy southern accent from Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis' characters obviously have never spent much time in the south. For every \"Brian and Carrie\" in the south, there is an \"Adele and Early\" and in 2006, that's the real horror of this flick.Aside from that, I think the film was written with a cult film intention - like with Carrie's photography, it's not suitable for mass consumption. But if you have a copy of this in your personal library, I think it says something positive about your tastes for freaky movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef917ee2a61f4991acb6f53746aa2ac6", "input": "Review: OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6220aafd3b7c462ea72fae1429dc54fa", "input": "Review: I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f1c2eff9b704c2e8057d27c85feeb77", "input": "Review: I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ddbd44c48e340cfb2f6c9bca05e39bf", "input": "Review: I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a43ab72e8554b0aa95f402e269a6324", "input": "Review: I read Schneebaum's book (same title as this film) when it was first published and was deeply moved by his ability to see through the many ways of \"otherness\" (his own and the people of the Amazon with whom he lived and loved) to a way of living a decent life. His subsequent books were not as powerful, but showed his continuing quest. His description of his sexual relations with the men of the tribe was way ahead of its time in the early 60's, but his honesty and openness about it were welcome. This movie beautifully conveys both the quirkiness and generosity of the man, but also provides a glimpse into the inevitable destruction of innocence (which is not a morally positive term, in this case) that occurs when \"civilized\" men intrude on traditional societies. Even so, Schneebaum himself has moved into a kind of higher innocence that suggests the possibility of saving humanity from its own destructiveness. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c6d8515285d4ebd860e5b5f83eac4b9", "input": "Review: So, not being a poet myself, I have no real way to convey the beauty and simplicity of this documentary. The effortless motion of Goldsworthy, as he molds natures beauty into his own work is captivating. Watch him stick reeds together in a web hanging from a tree in a close up for a few minutes while he speaks of his work, and then receive the payoff when the camera cuts to the wide shot. Be amazed by the ease with which he operates and then realize the futility when a slight breeze knocks down the entire web.The genius of Goldsworthy seemingly knows no bounds as his inspiration is nature itself. It is in the essential change of nature where his work, though complete in its own sphere, is made whole. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1acf2c1330ba43328ce42a883fe8ffa5", "input": "Review: Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the \"plot\" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-baaa70d6674c4c6b9ff13b8e3abad6b0", "input": "Review: Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a65f69d35c14382b2d011707b858717", "input": "Review: After \"A Dirty Shame\", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this \"Pecker\" sure is a lot better than \"A Dirty Shame\".In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than \"A Dirty Shame\". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than \"A Dirty Shame\". I give this movie a 6.5/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2708f9fa8b2c477e91dd95bf97ce8342", "input": "Review: As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream \"hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!\". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72bd91dd6b9140148f142ec84f6a876a", "input": "Review: Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5da552cfe3e4e25ba002f96065fbf6c", "input": "Review: This is not really a proper review since I did not see most of the film. I stopped watching it. The film is very violent, with nasty drug dealers and street punks, but that is not why I stopped watching.Here was the problem: I watched just enough to be introduced to several characters, all of whom were not interesting. Everyone was a tedious, despicable psychopath, with no engaging personalities, giving me nothing to look forward to. I found myself not the least bit curious about what they would do next or what might happen to them.If there had been even one person of interest, and I don't mean good or nice person, I mean an interesting person, I could have stayed with it. Watch \"State of Grace\" to see what I mean. In that film the Gary Oldman character is a complete lunatic, but he is *very* interesting. Al Pacino perhaps did a good job in Scarface, but his character just did not engage me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88f6b410871a433eb2862878bdc16da8", "input": "Review: Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, \"Well, that's not what I expected.\" But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d43635aa4f9940628e68ed85c3ae30c0", "input": "Review: Those who only remember the late Sir Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot or a professional raconteur would do well to seek out this charming piece of late '60s satire. Ustinov stars as a convicted embezzler (we first see him during his last day in gaol where he is preparing the prison governor's tax return) who, sensing that the future is in computers, poses (by means of a deft piece of identity theft) as a computer expert and sets out to infiltrate an American multinational.Ustinov (who co-wrote the script) is on top form, as is the delightful Maggie Smith, here unusually cast as an accident-prone cockney-sparrow dolly bird. Bob Newhart also puts in an amusing performance as a suspicious executive who has designs on Maggie Smith. In addition, Karl Malden is satisfyingly sleazy as Ustinov and Newhart's womanising boss.What do I particularly like about this film? Not only is it a well-thought-out 'caper movie' but it's also a touching little love story; Ustinov and Smith are very convincing as the two misfits stumbling into love (the whole scene involving the deck of cards is particularly effective.)So, what is there not to like? Well, the script is no more computer-literate than most films (that is, hardly at all) even though it captures the feel of late '60s 'big iron' business computing quite well. Also there are a couple of small plot glitches that you're not likely to notice until the second or third viewing, but I consider these to be minor niggles.As I said, this is a film which is well worth seeking out, and after you've seen it once you'll want to see it again at regular intervals. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfa379d36ce944cab33af88dab1abfd1", "input": "Review: First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8280c8c488740128179d86308c5f8f0", "input": "Review: I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For \"tiny\" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in \"Strike!(1998),\" when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked \"Was it beautiful?\"Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88fd64d3defa43d3b845799915b1cfbd", "input": "Review: Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, \"My god this looks like a really bad sitcom.\" Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e4198c2ab8b4be1b1a8dcb0d84239d2", "input": "Review: This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bde99845337c4ee9b68fa63657777df0", "input": "Review: I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.What direction! What camera! What storytelling! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-77530427ff764ee98821192e302047c2", "input": "Review: for those of you who love lord of the rings and love special effects, watch this movie! this will be sure to keep you glued to the screen. you will probably even like it if you like watching people fight with magical stuff. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3743d5d5755409ca1e3c8657b4db7f7", "input": "Review: The case is the best part of the movie but it alone is not worth the purchase price. I expected a \"Based on the true story\" movie only to find a shot on home video hodge-podge of poorly shot clips tied together with pathetic acting and non-related slaughter house scenes. The video scenes had numerous rewind situations which were used probably to extend the length of the feature rather than for effects. I started this review before I was even halfway through the movie and waited till it was over just in case it had a better ending but, low and behold it only got worse. If I could mark it any lower it would have been a negative ten. Learn from my mistake and save your money and time with this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1bb035ef84a4895ab81faa4d30822f4", "input": "Review: While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dde5e6fba06d4c8ab047543c92238c11", "input": "Review: Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d456d78541d947a49f92bc37697651a8", "input": "Review: Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4895169e77d54f139e8a7c11049ad84b", "input": "Review: Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa70cfe3e39c487cbe9d27543150c2f4", "input": "Review: If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02fa64f628ec42ad8dd6229ee77e91b6", "input": "Review: \"Secret of the Lens\" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.Check this out.WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec33ad246dda48bb8b0e17d6f95fd5ca", "input": "Review: This God forsaken film is about three dumb millionaires who gather a bunch of people to play a deadly game, and the winner gets a million dollars. First of all, the acting is terrible, and the movie makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not scary in the least bit, it is so stupid that it made me laugh, which is why it earned that 1 star.The movie is not violent at all, but is pretty sleazy and focuses mostly on the women's breasts the whole time, and some of the characters are very annoying and whiny. Plus, the monsters in this movie are so cheesy and fake and not scary that it just makes you want to throw something at the screen. Last, but not least the ending is terrible. I don't want to give it away, in case you actually are strange enough to see this piece of junk. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!Not Rated (But should be R) for Nudity, Profanity, and Mild Gore. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1973476dd1e24d0f8208489c75c0a63f", "input": "Review: This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.A movie of its time, and place. 2/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b86a0a191be4360a3916e032338bf30", "input": "Review: The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6df22760703d4d5684dfab0e97e2910f", "input": "Review: \"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain\" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. \"Legend of Zu\" is connected to \"Zu\"warriors from magic mountain\"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like \"Superman Returns\" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. \"Legend of Zu\" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0d93e957db044a59b4daa8f5ef0f2f7", "input": "Review: 'Ned Kelly' is a wonderfully made Australian film honouring a true Australian hero. We are taken into the world of Ned, his best friend, Joe Byrne, and the other members of the Kelly Gang, as the film explains and perhaps justifies Ned's actions.There is an exceptional cast present, who all give stellar performances, which brings the film to life. (Great job, Heath!) Orlando Bloom was fantastic as Joe, playing the role of quiet, loyal ladiesman very well. I was swept up in the moment. For a moment I almost believed the Gang would win the battle at Glenrowan, alas, it was not to be.Some aspects of the film are fictional, and as an avid Ned Kelly fan (and supporter), was slightly disappointed by this. Perhaps also the film could've gone longer, to cover more of the Kelly Gang's/Ned's life - I felt not enough was covered.Regardless of a few flaws, this is a moving film, which stirs all sorts of emotions. (And hey, I'd assume this film would be better to watch rather than Mick Jagger trying to portray Ned...) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cdc906c5397426b82d78922592bf5c2", "input": "Review: Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c6e9d56cb22404ca69cf7cb9b813cf4", "input": "Review: This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick \"Disorder in the Court\". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of \"Voices of Spring\". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed! 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a357b41545348a28367acc812156a94", "input": "Review: Robert Urich was a fine actor, and he makes this TV movie believable. I remember watching this film when I was 15, and when seeing it a second time my opinion stays the same. People lose who they were when enter this exclusive club, in a computer rich Californian town. Urich try's to figure out what is wrong with his family, and I love the Halloween space suit idea, brilliant. This film is about the battle of one's sprit. TV quality, that exceeds, the big budget, Gangs of New York. I wonder if Robert Urich was the compassionate man he portrayed in many of his movie? I hope so! 6 or 7 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b8506885b4b479485e6ec09cde9b286", "input": "Review: the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8625ffa9f14439aa54cd9d605adb9e6", "input": "Review: The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with \"Young Mr. Lincoln:\" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.It's a nice watch, but not a classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa0c1133327c4300a054ade1c0d6424f", "input": "Review: Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in \"krummernes Jul\", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like \"Film folket\"!all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-24cb429826f349b9a213f244e1b61eac", "input": "Review: Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated \"Emmanuelle\" series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e43e0b3f64bf4964aa32924527f9549f", "input": "Review: For the initial 20 minutes or so (I was watching it on a PS2 so I've really no idea how long it took) Alienator sets up an interesting premise. I don't think I've seen a slasher movie with an alien from another planet as the baddie before. However, interest soon turns into stunned disbelief as you realise the 'alien' is a huge body-builder woman in a steel bikini. Yes, Alienator is patently ridiculous.Don't think I hold that against it. In the world of shlock-horror, patently ridiculous can often be a good sign. However, the blatant stupidity of its premise is all the movie really has going for it. Alienator is funny as hell, but it is also a shambolic suckfest of the highest order. Actors heap on failed attempts at seriousness, potentially genius lines of pure cheese dialogue are stumbled over with unnerving incompetence and the direction fails to sum up even one or two decent set-pieces. By the time the movie's finished you can barely see the original concept through the haystack of total tripe the team piled on it.Add to this the fact that the 'Alien' just kills people by vaporising them, as opposed to doing any 'slashing' as such and you have a giant throbbing heap of good ideas being left to rot. You'll laugh at Alienator, but AT it, not with it. If that's your thing then go ahead and check it out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88c2a7010a874589bcf1a47b8b0dc405", "input": "Review: I love the episode where Jim becomes the Greenman. It is great! When Jim tosses that little person through the window, the look on his face is priceless. Then when he starts to address the Priest in his wife's behalf only to find out that she has become the Pee-Woman? Great writing and great casting along with great acting makes this a must see. I am attempting to find a certain photo from that episode. I'd like to use it as my avatar on a message board because I think the Greenman is hilarious. Does anyone know where I can download a photo of Jim as the Greenman? Can anyone point me in the right direction to find such a photo? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44c127ab7c1048ff8f19019c58f72203", "input": "Review: Noll's comfortable way of rolling out blunt comments, often with expletives, to describe things that he is more knowledgeable about than most is quite refreshing. There is one other character in the film that constantly tries to verbalize complicated issues, using more language than necessary. This guy should never have been given a Thesaurus. Cut to Noll and you know you're in for a treat!The way the pioneers of big wave surfing are portrayed is very evocative of a \"lost era\". Nevermind the fact that no one knows how these guys made a living, much less took care of issues like medical care. The use of old film clips throughout was masterfully done. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c95b99ea6e6b4cbba272f4244ba95cbb", "input": "Review: Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ff1eeaa6d6a4acfb692606d485950df", "input": "Review: He now has a name, an identity, some memories and a a lost girlfriend. All he wanted was to disappear, but still, they traced him and destroyed the world he hardly built. Now he wants some explanation, and to get ride of the people how made him what he is. Yeah, Jason Bourne is back, and this time, he 's here with a vengeance.OK, this movie doesn't have the most elaborated script in the world, but its thematics are very clever and ask some serious questions about our society. Of course, like every Hollywoodian movie since the end of the 90's, \"The Bourne Suprematy\" is a super-heroes story. Jason Bourne is a Captain-America project-like, who's gone completely wrong. In the first movie, the hero discovered his abilities and he accepted them in the second one. He now fights against what he considers like evil, after a person close to him has been killed (his girlfriend in \"Suprematy\") by them. That's all a part of the super-hero story, including a character with (realistic but still impressive : he almost invincible) super powers.And the interesting point is that the evil he fights all across the world (there's no frontiers in the Bourne's movies, characters are going from one continent to another in the blink of an eye), is, as in the best seasons of \"24\", an American enemy, who's beliefs that he fight for the good of his country completely blinds him. Funny how \"mad patriots\" are now the N.1 enemies of paranoiac Hollywood's stories.Beside all those interesting thematics, the movie isn't flawless : the feminine character of Nickie Parson is for now on completely useless and the direction is quite unoriginal when it comes to dialogs scenes. But all that doesn't really matter, for \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" is an action movie. And the action scenes are rather impressive.Everyone here is talking about the \"Waterloo scene\" and the \"Tanger pursuit\" and everyone's right. I particularly enjoyed the fight in Tanger, that reminds my in its exaggeration and craziness the works of Tsui Hark. Visually inventive scenes, lots of intelligent action parts and a good reflection on American's contemporary thematics : \"The Bourne Ultimatum\" is definitely the best movie of the series and a very interesting and original action flick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbeb2921f66243db85df95e7cd07d545", "input": "Review: hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7880a7f797a5480c83c2caba7991e282", "input": "Review: Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a \"serious\" superhero movie but at least its entertaining. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7d64a390f9a4ee0a1cfb99349a3eb0d", "input": "Review: From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4b1a29393ca496e9e0101bf3f813d91", "input": "Review: An axellent second installment that manages to be just as good as the first. Once again, the casting is just wonderful. I like how the first and second episode have nothing in common except for the wit and cleverness.The second episode is just very funny, very silly and very enjoyable. It is the very first Christmas episode, about a woman who is tormented by a serial killer dressed as Santa after having killed her own husband. Just like the first episode; karma.The most humorous scene is a tie between the murder of her husband and her phone call, first faking her fear until it becomes real. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-40b8904c956749799b7e08c46f60b82d", "input": "Review: this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around. Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet) even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great. this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... \"So say good night to the BAD guy\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09e168aab0cb45e0a2e8f55c82015603", "input": "Review: There is a bit of trivia which should be pointed out about a scene early in the movie where Homer watches the attempt of December 6, 1957 (at least that was the video used on the TV he was watching) which showed the Vangard launch attempt, which failed.He is next shown reading or dictating a letter to Dr. Von Braun offering condolences about the failure.Von Braun was at Marshall space flight center in Huntsville working for the Army. The Vanguard project was by the early Nasa team which was at what soon became Goddard Space flight center.The army rushed the Jupiter-C, which was essentially a US made V2 technology, but worked to launch a satellite in response to Russia's success with Sputnik.This error may have actually been made by Homer, because of the notoriety of Von Braun, but his team didn't have their attempt fail. In fact the underlying Redstone was flying from 52 and was the first US man rated booster, used for Shepard's sub orbital flight, as well as Grissom's.This is why this sort of movie is so good, as it hopefully will inspire people to read up and spot these bits of trivia, and in the process see what has been done, and be inspired to do more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64dc2836260d4d9aab8aff55687c32bf", "input": "Review: This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d283ef52e6f44faf976f0e50d40f3662", "input": "Review: This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called \"scares\" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5932802a2bf4e4789da1238bb0a9eba", "input": "Review: I went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.As a film it was painful, but seeing Bret Carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle.My favorite part of the movie was seeing BC slammed in the face with what appeared to be a \"C\" battery. The jury is still out on this. It was from a dildo and it was in slow-mo. Yep.\"Shoot the left side of the face only...people become famous by demanding things!\" - Bret Carr B. Carr donned a Chicken Suit for a bit of reverse psychology, roaming the streets of Clifton bashing his own film. He should. This is correct to bash the film.My soul felt chafed after this movie.Bret Carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.-Anonymous Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46c3ed93c4de4273b8fab2c350c3483a", "input": "Review: I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-630d3bf79a1d4a099f8a36d2b5411cf8", "input": "Review: When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.\"But its a comedy \" some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? \"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs\" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4db7eac6950d4dd8a67e515e4e493e86", "input": "Review: Poorly structured, badly written, loaded with cliches and flat dialogue. Not a single scene shines. The actors struggle with a painfully dull scenario that manages to completely avoid any surprises, plot twists or conflict. You know from the first ten minutes where it's going.For a movie set in NY, it has almost no feeling for the city. There are a dozen other indie movies that manage to make it seem magical on a small budget. This one seems like it was shot in Toronto.If you cast Natasha Henstridge, why dress her in baggy sweaters? Why make Vartan look boring and drab? Where's the attraction? I felt like I was watching a sub-par Christian movie of the week it was so asexual and moralizing.Steven Feder's big success is that he convinced people to make this bland movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-221c157c095443a4a0c53c6c2b52416f", "input": "Review: After having seen a lot of Greek movies I feel very suspicious against most of them. But after watching this I felt astonished. The movies is great without a big try. You cannot claim that the screenplay is so great or the photography is perfect or something technical. It's a real story and it is happening in Greek rural areas in places forgotten from God. The movie is like a punch in the stomach and I would really wish that things are not like this. It obviously talks about the xenophobia of the Greek people (the ignorance)to anything different. The problem of this guy is not that he is an ex-convicted. The problem is that he is not one of these people. He is different and they do not want them (that's why all the good things he is doing turn boomerang to him). And also speaks about the apathy of the people, because there are some people who are against the hunting of the King, but they do not dare to say their opinion. In the end you can clearly see the hypocrisy of the society being religious and trying to act like God says, but at the same time acting so unfairly to the King. This shows how easily people rationalize their feelings or their beliefs according to the established system. In the end you can have a positive lesson from this very bad story, meaning that you can understand and be part of this society only if you want to become one of them. If you want to remain different and even alone, you are lost (and it is not far from reality) I think it is tragic that the story is real and this should be a bell for everybody. No comment for the main actor because he is already given an award and I believe that his play was great. Small comment for Hatzisavvas (plays the policeman), he is like a dinosaur, he has played a lot of roles and I'm sure that this role for him was very easy but he plays it so great that you cannot deny him a big bravo. I definitely recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good Greek movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8265cdf9b714e56ad39964af850cbb7", "input": "Review: I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f20318c0ed1f40c08b5b8cb99d436f87", "input": "Review: Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e304744380914e52af6a89217e28e964", "input": "Review: This is just a joke of a movie,they lost me already at the opening scene (Spoilerwarning) dangerous creature kills other creature in his cage,this is watched by a scientist that works there on a monitor and guess what she does,well lets go in to the cage to check the stuff out,omg how dumb do those writers think human beings are come on thats the same like jumping in a fish tank with a great white shark because it ate your goldfish...Pretty useless and even more dumber.And i will not even talk about the cast because they aren't worth the effort. why they didn't fired the guy that wrote that immediately is a mystery to me.....And this kinda dumbness continues the entire movie. Only good thing where the cgi that is better then average for these kinda low-budget movies.If these kinda things don't bother you go see it,but be warned if your IQ is above 60 you will probably hate it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aea778c0345c462894253b86f3ad49b7", "input": "Review: I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.Why was this movie ever made? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-57986e854ca540b784c10fdea1126193", "input": "Review: Jonathan Demme's directorial debut for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures rates highly as one of the finest chicks-in-chains 70's grindhouse classics to ever grace celluloid. Beauteous Russ Meyer starlet Eric (\"Vixen,\" \"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls\") Gavin gives a robust, winning performance as a brassy, resilient new fish who does her best to persevere in a grimy, hellish penitentiary. The always fabulous Barbara Steele offers a deliciously wicked portrayal as the mean, crippled, sexually frustrated warden (her erotic dream about doing a slow, steamy striptease in front of the lady inmates is a real dilly). Longtime favorite 70's B-movie actress Roberta (\"The Arousers,\" \"Unholy Rollers\") Collins delivers a hilariously raunchy and endearing turn as a cheerfully forward, foul-mouthed kleptomaniac felon who tells a gut-busting dirty joke about Pinnochio. Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire of Tobe Hooper's \"Eaten Alive\" and Curtis Harrington's \"Ruby\") makes her lively film debut as uninhibited wildcat Crazy Alice. And the ever-cuddly Cheryl \"Rainbeaux\" Smith does a lovely, touching reprise of her fragile frightened innocent role from \"Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural.\" Although this picture does deliver the expected ample amount of coarse language, nudity, rape and violence, it's still by no means a typically crass and sexist piece of lurid mindless filth; the movie very effectively explores the many ways in which men cruelly exploit women and strongly asserts the pro-feminist notion that women can overcome any obstacles if they band together into a group so they can bravely face their misogynistic oppressors as one mighty fighting force. Demme's zesty, confidant direction comes through with a glorious abundance of astutely observed incidental details and delightful moments of engagingly quirky human behavior. Furthermore, both Tak Fujimoto's vibrant cinematography and John Cale's marvelously dolorous oddball blues score are 100% on the money excellent. Patrick Wright (Sheriff Mack in the uproariously awful cheap-rubber-monster-suit creature feature howler \"Track of the Moonbeast\") has a sidesplitting bit as a jerky cop who has his car stolen by a trio of prison escapees when he stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Lively, rousing and immensely enjoyable, \"Caged Heat\" qualifies as absolutely essential viewing for 70's drive-in movie fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30b3b570341241159035dc79b5a31e58", "input": "Review: This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his \"I'll be back line\" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fabd6b4cbcb3414d950ea66269625f80", "input": "Review: I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure \"The Incredible Melting Man\" would be a lot of fun.It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:\"I'll find him with a geiger counter.\" \"Is he radioactive?\" \"Just a little bit.\" Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. \"Oh god - it's his ear!\" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c015644d5ee4f808d181238ca87cad5", "input": "Review: S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market. The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2eea70b93fe4da38cdafb60a3aef25a", "input": "Review: I first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-577c4ea75f5441489acae629e947311e", "input": "Review: .......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ca49395ee944e4ea1033f3dda855b13", "input": "Review: ***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic \"The Searchers\" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b13b35bacee47e49d233570236384c9", "input": "Review: Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, \"Seven Pounds\" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-65fe4eb5a36d4c36ad92e07ea4908422", "input": "Review: Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase \"low budget\" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes \"molecular reorganization\". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic \"F\", so rest easy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d7aa0df47d7437f98a16b006769de77", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c14bb7b873ce463eb8a962ff89654a9f", "input": "Review: For a comedy this has a decent and inventive plot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone's comic timing is perfect. There are dozens of funny moments to this fantastic movie. I especially like the multitude of colors and the way the clash in the sports arena scenes. Robert Stacks Unsolved Mysteries spoof is also very amusing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-381a93c2146e4f798ff2d23cc4c9afeb", "input": "Review: The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7f8aa5618d04e2cb9910de52be99579", "input": "Review: Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the \"Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this \"Movie\" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a7b08d7acdd4874b06387730137947a", "input": "Review: Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c20826afb02847fa93496cb41f5adc0b", "input": "Review: It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2e58fb7fca047df924468c3d0b50198", "input": "Review: I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c28e1906f394bf3ab3826ce15d5bccb", "input": "Review: First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the \"Uncle's\" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the \"Dragon Head Baton\", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more. Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8a2321c2e6c40629d14c2ac1b08b93c", "input": "Review: The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3726a85cf9854a8d95f94f88e13b9205", "input": "Review: I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to \"get into\" the movie.I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3e0895ec11e47929d238b15f02272be", "input": "Review: It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c98a43d8b94b4fbcbc5f903eff23f2df", "input": "Review: Fire And Ice is an animated film set in a fantasy world. The film is about a village that is destroyed by a giant glacier which is the home of the evil ice lord named Nekron. The only survivor of the village is a young man named Larn who sets out to avenge those who were killed by the glacier. The ice glacier moves through the land of fire and the princess of the land named Teegra is kidnapped by evil creatures. Larn sets out to find her and also sets out to find and kill Nekron. Fire And Ice is directed by Ralph Bakshi who is one of my favourite adult animators. He has brought us such animated masterpieces as the film version of Fritz The Cat and some films he has written himself, like the great film Heavy Traffic. I didn't like Fire And Ice nearly as much as I have Ralph Bakshi's other work, but I still found the film to be enjoyable. It had some very nice animation in parts and the story was entertaining enough. The only basic complaints I have is that I wish that there was more of a story to the film because the story it uses is very thin and there is not a lot to it. I also wish the film was a bit longer because it is under 80 minutes in running time. Still it's an entertaining action adventure films that unlike Fritz The Cat or Heavy Traffic is appropriate for kids 8 and older. I only wish that there was a more developed story and it went on a bit longer than it did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e862c4970fe4233bf76643087591384", "input": "Review: This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between \"Kung-Fu\" and \"H R Pufnstuff\" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, \"cliffhanger scenes\", and not too much romance or other \"icky\" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! \"Dialogue\" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that \"dialog\" is the proper spelling. While \"dialog\" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-38a0a7c54f6c4f0bb7dbbceae86cbea7", "input": "Review: Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a \"strafing\" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-192dedd747d34cbf9b70c4a1a46a305c", "input": "Review: A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the \"funny\" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e550f6570344549b7e23e12df146817", "input": "Review: A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an \"extreme\" torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.The actress who plays the victim of the \"experiment\" is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cada1c45a3a4455f9d7f32970a8fb69f", "input": "Review: What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f61b53653eac49cf9e99f3575863d34d", "input": "Review: Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.'Should have' being the key term here, of course.Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, \"Good boy, Dex,\" just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick \"The Phantom,\" starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d04f7c78b2a432fa8e1faf8b441910f", "input": "Review: Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24606acaba614e06b9b70d8df1ebd094", "input": "Review: I didn't know the real events when I sat down to watch this, just the fact that this was based upon a true story. After the death of the kid's father, Rhonda tries to help her daughter Desiree(... I did not know anyone actually named their offspring that) cope with the loss. This is really made for children, as is often the case with \"family\" flicks(with that said, go ahead and get everyone together for a viewing, though I'd keep teenagers out of it, unless you're sure they're gonna buy the concept), but it doesn't downplay the sting that the death of a parent is, and it doesn't really talk down to anyone. The plot is sufficiently interesting, and moves along well enough. Acting varies, with the excellent Burstyn outshining most of her fellow cast, Mathis following that pretty well, and Ferland and her peers(with a few exceptions) being the least convincing of the bunch(and frankly, they're irritating; then again, I'm not really in the intended audience for this thing). The editing and cinematography are standard, and certainly not less than that. While humor is limited to a handful of amusing lines or so, the tone is not an unpleasant one. There is an intense scene or two in this. I recommend this to fans of these types of movies. 7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-874bcbab152b494b8b1fd671a3e1f664", "input": "Review: This was a truly bad film. The character \"Cole\" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot lineYuck! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37a23bbde8bb4652a891fa948fd14832", "input": "Review: Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6badf079e8754c9b8004d3e0ff98d760", "input": "Review: This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as \"Mitchell in Malta.\" At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d38628aa127a42d1aa5f85de17c5ce23", "input": "Review: Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current \"edgy film-making\". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.I know I didn't.Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a61f119237c4388a3a6cc178f66997d", "input": "Review: Enterprise, the latest high budget spin-off to the most successful franchise in film and or television history opens to the tune of a 90-minute episode called 'Broken Bow'. First we are swept into a massive action sequence with a Klingon being chased by some Suliban (who are the main enemy in the first season of the show). From there the televised movie takes us on a journey that seldom gets as good as it is, with some of the best character development, story and action/visual effects ever seen in such a short amount of time.The opening-credits is a debatable subject among the minority of Enterprise fans, whom some believe that the song is out of place. What they fail to realise is the lyrics themselves. If one listens to the actual song, instead of the theme, then they will begin to piece the parts of the puzzle together. And eventually as the series progresses further and further, and we learn more about our valiant captain and his crew, will the song actually become meaningful. Overall Diane Warren's theme is beautifully orchestrated and is sung just as well by opera singer Russell Watson.What makes any television show watchable and worth watching time and time again is its characters and the way they become structured and layered. Enterprise is (in my opinion) one of the most well cast shows since The Next Generation. Choosing Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer was the best decision since Gene himself cast Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. As the captain always leads the show, Bakula adds a subtlety to his role and brings a huge smile to the faces of anyone with blood pumping in their veins. He simply is (both actor wise and character wise) a superb human being and his charm, wit, and compassion are overwhelming to watch. As for the other cast members, a favourite of mine is John Billingsley who plays Dr. Phlox. It's also nice to see a non-human playing a role, and the decision to give the captain a dog, named 'Porthos' was a well-received idea. Throughout the show character development was brilliant, it was fast, well timed and almost perfect. I say almost because sadly Travis Mayweather's character played by the Briton Anthony Montgomery is a little weak at the end of the first season. He does have some things to say here and there, but remains in the hands of the producers to make him more important. Jolene Blalock is wonderful as the sometimes harsh but equally loveable Subcommander T'Pol. Dominic Keating as Lieutenant Malcolm Reed plays a strong role and is convincing as the armoury officer. Connor Trinneer plays Commander Charles \"Trip\" Tucker who always adds charm and comedic style to his character and finally Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato, who often plays a weaker character but thankfully quickly becomes interesting. All of these characters make up Enterprise, and all bring a quality that Star Trek hasn't seen in a long time. Each person makes this show worth watching. Smiles and feel-good senses are guaranteed right from the first time we see them all together on the bridge of the starship Enterprise NX-01.The ship itself, the NX-01 is somewhat questionable in design. The series is set 150 years from now and 100 years before Captain Kirk. So why then does the ship appear to be similar in design to mid 24th century ships, namely the Akira class starship? Continuity has been an issue in Enterprise, but thankfully Rick [Berman] and Brannon [Braga] offer suitable explanations for each and everyone of them. Continuity is only a problem if you are forever scrutinising shows and are obsessed with the tiniest of details. If you see the show with and open mind, then you'll have no problems, but there is an urge to know 'why' all the time. So what did Berman and Braga offer to the Star Trek fan-base with the issue of the deign of the ship itself? According to them the NX-01 is how it is because of the incident in First Contact. When Zefram Cochrane saw the Enterprise-E through his telescope and from speaking with the away team lead by Commander Riker, it changed the ideas in his head. That's a good enough explanation for me.lets move on. Of course its not as easy for some fans to accept that sort of answer, some go as far as to refuse to see the show until they get a reasonable answer. Come on guys grow up.When George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars saga with the launch of his profit making new trilogy, fans couldn't do anything, only watch and sap it all up anyway. And then they learned that, well maybe its not that bad after all. If you can't accept a quality show for what it is, not what it should be in your mind, then go elsewhere. Or try becoming a producer on the show and then see what you can do.The sets on Enterprise remind me very much of the Defiant from Deep Space Nine. They often appear cold and have an eerie look of modern structure to them and they cry out that they belong to the military. Perhaps that why the crew of the USS Enterprise (aka flagship of the American fleet) like it so much. They are striking sets, and represent the show perfectly.Rick Berman 'the overlord of the empire' as John Logan so accurately put it and his counterpart Brannon Braga has hit the nail on the head exactly where they should have, and in all the right places. Whether that be technicalities, visuals, sound, editing or score. Enterprise is a fine demonstration to just how good televised science fiction can ultimately be, when in the hands of geniuses. The late Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this series and as a Star Trek fan, so should you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe506327277e47ff9a6dbd73619ff871", "input": "Review: I felt this film - throughout. I waas impressed with Russell Crowe's talent in developing his relationship with Lillie, such a typical Aussie blend of softly softly approach, a bit self depreciating and very persistent. Really loved the cinematography and direction. Pace was just right and the portrayals of nearly all characters was impressive.Gosh, didn't Russell's talent even in 1993 shine! .. and I have yet to see Gladiator. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a95416315b9240e08a14a0dd09a7581f", "input": "Review: Clint Tollinger arrives in a small town looking for his estranged wife and news of his daughter, tho he finds her, the chance of any sort of reconciliation is very slim. Whilst here, the sheriff and the important townsfolk learn of Tollinger's reputation as a pistol specialist town tamer. As they are living in fear of a mysterious landowner who is stripping the town from them bit by bit, they hold a meeting that chooses to hire Tollinger to rid the town of it's unsavoury elements.Man With The Gun seems to be either a forgotten piece or a vastly under seen one, at the time of me writing this, it has just over 200 votes and a paltry 9 user comments written for it. It's a shame on either score because although the production values scream out that this is a B movie Western, this is a fine entry in the Western genre. That the piece takes on a rather standard plot theme of an harangued town turning to an avenging dark angel, probably hasn't done the film any favours over the years, i myself read the synopsis and thought it's just another in the line of similarly themed pictures. Yet i was pleasantly surprised to find a darkly dramatic picture boasting many enjoyable moments, both technically and as a functioning story.Robert Mitchum is in the lead as Tollinger, perfectly cast, he strides thru the picture like some brooding menace. We often talk about the screen presence that John Wayne and Charlton Heston had {justifiably of course}, Mitchum is right up there with the best of them. One sequence here sees him standing in the shadows at the back of a room as a meeting takes place, we don't see his face, but we can feel that piercing brood staring out at us!. The rest of the cast are also very much in Mitchum's shadow, so really it's solely with the big man that the films acting credentials are high, perhaps it's unfair to single out Ted de Corsia for a kick, but Man With The Gun's minor failings are with its villains, and sadly de Corsia is lacking any sort of villainesque menace. The score from Alex North is excellently layered {fans of Spartacus will certainly be pricking their ears up} and the cinematography from Lee Garmes is highly impressive when one realises that the majority of this picture was shot on the studio lot. Directed and co-written by first time director Richard Wilson, Man With The Gun holds few surprises for the genre, but it's dark in tone, violent and above all else, highly watchable. 7.5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08ccd19c443546c596e946211d6784d0", "input": "Review: How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f512f71f9fa345ad8faf3af2f32f1a4c", "input": "Review: This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it! I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical! They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bce00bc0c0614237a5a0de39b2bc287b", "input": "Review: this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-878e63faf7d74e19825c58cb4ceee657", "input": "Review: This is one of the funniest movies that I have seen this year. The people that made it must be so incredibly whacked and twisted. It is a beautiful thing. There were a lot of quality one-liners. This movie blew Uncle Sam out of the water (it was made by tha same people, i think) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c6bd670cd654e1ead3d9b8e891a3c2d", "input": "Review: Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1fce34268d6418fa344f02570e22fb6", "input": "Review: The story of Cinderella is one of my favorites from Charles Perrault, with Sleeping Beauty which was also made into a Disney film in 1959; this film is a sweet, enchanting masterpiece from Disney.The film has a great soundtrack; that's one I like in a movie is a very good soundtrack, and I love the songs too; my favorite song is the romantic \"So This is Love.\" I love the mice from the film too, they are cute. My favorite scene is the scene after the narration, the little birds tried to wake Cinderella up in the morning; I also love it when Cinderella's animal friends (the mice and birds) fix up Cinderella's birth-mother's dress, so she could go to the ball...until Drizella & Anastasia tore it to bits, the b****es! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f4445ae40b042f1a59957c1d0360dc6", "input": "Review: Robert Urich was a fine actor, and he makes this TV movie believable. I remember watching this film when I was 15, and when seeing it a second time my opinion stays the same. People lose who they were when enter this exclusive club, in a computer rich Californian town. Urich try's to figure out what is wrong with his family, and I love the Halloween space suit idea, brilliant. This film is about the battle of one's sprit. TV quality, that exceeds, the big budget, Gangs of New York. I wonder if Robert Urich was the compassionate man he portrayed in many of his movie? I hope so! 6 or 7 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4949c51d138b4ebcb910dd96b6f2c823", "input": "Review: I imagine that the young people involved in the making of \"Necromancy\" (aka \"The Witching\" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play (\"The Cradle Will Rock\"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading (\"The War of the Worlds\"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time (\"Citizen Kane\"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary \"Bugs Bunny Superstar\" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary \"The Man who Saw Tomorrow\" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79bd031bdd1a4865aa70a89983f05951", "input": "Review: Police Story is arguably one of the best works by the master of action himself.Compared to other action films,Police Story makes Schwarzenegger and Stallone look like beginners.The stunt scenes are well cheorgraphed and the action scenes are superb.If New Line Cinema has any sense,they would release this in theaters. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b23eea815d84859a43af2917f62154f", "input": "Review: I loved this movie since I was 7 and I saw it on the opening day. It was so touching and beautiful. I strongly recommend seeing for all. It's a movie to watch with your family by far.My MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, prolonged scenes of disastor, nudity/sexuality and some language. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0a3130bd18d4f2b9380f6b18da2ed0d", "input": "Review: Shocking, well-made chiller is an undervalued tale of atrocious murder and evil forces.Small town doctor tries to discover who, or what, is committing a series of violent sexual murders.Incubus is a tight mystery, with some horrific murder sequences, that builds to an off-beat and eerie climatic twist. The murder scenes are intense and gory, so this isn't a film for the squeamish! The direction of John Hough, along with a bizarre music score, combine to create a dark atmosphere of dread that runs through out the film. It also carries a kind of Gothic vibe as well. Nice filming locations and some stylish camera work also highlight.The cast isn't bad either. The great John Cassavetes does a solid performance as the new doctor in town. Also good are the performances of Kerrie Keane as the local reporter, Helen Hughes as the town historian, and Duncan McIntosh as a tormented psychic teen.All around Incubus is a forgotten horror film that needs to be re-discovered and re-evaluated.*** out of **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ed88b5af7224661acf51eabc75cc00f", "input": "Review: I know, I know, \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" is the worst movie, or maybe \"Manos, the Hands of Fate.\" But I can't get worked up over those sock-monkey movies. Of *course* they're bad. How could they be any good? But if you're talking about movies with respectable production values and bankable talent, the T. rex of all turkeys has to be \"Yentl.\" All the treacly phoniness, all the self-absorbed asininity, that stains everything Barbra Streisand has done since 1964, reaches its culmination in this movie. From its lonely summit of awfulness, \"Yentl\" looks back to \"A Star is Born\" and forward to \"The Mirror Has Two Faces.\" There is nothing else quite like it. What emotional undertow dragged Streisand out to make this movie I would rather not speculate, and what audience she was playing to I cannot possibly imagine, although I'll bet there's a nine in ten chance you aren't a member of it.Nobel Prize-winner and saintly guardian of Yiddish literature Isaac Bashevis Singer was so outraged by what Streisand did to his story that he blasted her in public for it. It is a tribute to Streisand's impenetrable vulgarity that she not only didn't commit suicide, but went on to make more awful movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db9171b8512e4da58b3d1e4b2cf6eb6c", "input": "Review: 'Presque Rien' ('Come Undone') is an earlier work by the inordinately gifted writer/ director Sébastien Lifshitz (with the collaboration of writer Stéphane Bouquet - the team that gave us the later 'Wild Side'). As we come to understand Lifshitz's manner of storytelling each of his works becomes more treasureable. By allowing his tender and sensitive love stories to unfold in the same random fashion found in the minds of confused and insecure youths - time now, time passed, time reflective, time imagined, time alone - Lifshitz makes his tales more personal, involving the viewer with every aspect of the characters' responses. It takes a bit of work to key into his method, but going with his technique draws us deeply into the film.Mathieu (handsome and gifted Jérémie Elkaïm) is visiting the seaside for a holiday, a time to allow his mother (Dominique Reymond) to struggle with her undefined illness, cared for by the worldly and wise Annick (Marie Matheron) and accompanied by his sister Sarah (Laetitia Legrix): their distant father has remained at home for business reasons. Weaving in and out of the first moments of the film are images of Mathieu alone, looking depressed, riding trains, speaking to someone in a little recorder. We are left to wonder whether the unfolding action is all memory or contemporary action.While sunning at the beach Mathieu notices a handsome youth his age starring at him, and we can feel Mathieu's emotions quivering with confusion. The youth Cédric (Stéphane Rideau) follows Mathieu and his sister home, continuing the mystery of attraction. Soon Cédric approaches Mathieu and a gentle introduction leads to a kiss that begins a passionate love obsession. Mathieu is terrified of the direction he is taking, rebuffs Cédric's public approaches, but continues to seek him out for consignations. The two young men are fully in the throes of being in love and the enactment of the physical aspect of this relationship, so very necessary to understanding this story, is shared with the audience in some very erotic and sensual scenes. Yet as the summer wears on Mathieu, a committed student, realizes that Cédric is a drifter working in a condiment stand at a carnival. It becomes apparent that Cédric is the Dionysian partner while Mathieu is the Apollonian one: in a telling time in architectural ruin Mathieu is excited by the beauty of the history and space while Cédric is only interested in the place as a new hideaway for lovemaking.Mathieu is a complex person, coping with his familial ties strained by critical illness and a non-present father, a fear of his burgeoning sexuality, and his nascent passion for Cédric. Their moments of joy are disrupted by Cédric's admission of infidelity and Mathieu's inability to cope with that issue and eventually they part ways. Time passes, family changes are made, and Mathieu drifts into depression including a suicide attempt. The manner in which Mathieu copes with all of these challenges and finds solace, strangely enough, in one of Cédric's past lovers Pierre (Nils Ohlund) brings the film to an ambiguous yet wholly successful climax.After viewing the film the feeling of identification with these characters is so strong that the desire to start the film from the beginning now with the knowledge of the complete story is powerful. Lifshitz has given us a film of meditation with passion, conflicts with passion's powers found in love, and a quiet film of silences and reveries that are incomparably beautiful. The entire cast is superb and the direction is gentle and provocative. Lifshitz is most assuredly one of the bright lights of film-making. In French with English subtitles. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c347c928bfa48d39cdb6507d69eb1b6", "input": "Review: My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement. The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as \"should have been a TV movie\", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.Rating: ***1/2 out of 5. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-723c57a789af4c31bf46560f646c3fe6", "input": "Review: 'Presque Rien' ('Come Undone') is an earlier work by the inordinately gifted writer/ director Sébastien Lifshitz (with the collaboration of writer Stéphane Bouquet - the team that gave us the later 'Wild Side'). As we come to understand Lifshitz's manner of storytelling each of his works becomes more treasureable. By allowing his tender and sensitive love stories to unfold in the same random fashion found in the minds of confused and insecure youths - time now, time passed, time reflective, time imagined, time alone - Lifshitz makes his tales more personal, involving the viewer with every aspect of the characters' responses. It takes a bit of work to key into his method, but going with his technique draws us deeply into the film.Mathieu (handsome and gifted Jérémie Elkaïm) is visiting the seaside for a holiday, a time to allow his mother (Dominique Reymond) to struggle with her undefined illness, cared for by the worldly and wise Annick (Marie Matheron) and accompanied by his sister Sarah (Laetitia Legrix): their distant father has remained at home for business reasons. Weaving in and out of the first moments of the film are images of Mathieu alone, looking depressed, riding trains, speaking to someone in a little recorder. We are left to wonder whether the unfolding action is all memory or contemporary action.While sunning at the beach Mathieu notices a handsome youth his age starring at him, and we can feel Mathieu's emotions quivering with confusion. The youth Cédric (Stéphane Rideau) follows Mathieu and his sister home, continuing the mystery of attraction. Soon Cédric approaches Mathieu and a gentle introduction leads to a kiss that begins a passionate love obsession. Mathieu is terrified of the direction he is taking, rebuffs Cédric's public approaches, but continues to seek him out for consignations. The two young men are fully in the throes of being in love and the enactment of the physical aspect of this relationship, so very necessary to understanding this story, is shared with the audience in some very erotic and sensual scenes. Yet as the summer wears on Mathieu, a committed student, realizes that Cédric is a drifter working in a condiment stand at a carnival. It becomes apparent that Cédric is the Dionysian partner while Mathieu is the Apollonian one: in a telling time in architectural ruin Mathieu is excited by the beauty of the history and space while Cédric is only interested in the place as a new hideaway for lovemaking.Mathieu is a complex person, coping with his familial ties strained by critical illness and a non-present father, a fear of his burgeoning sexuality, and his nascent passion for Cédric. Their moments of joy are disrupted by Cédric's admission of infidelity and Mathieu's inability to cope with that issue and eventually they part ways. Time passes, family changes are made, and Mathieu drifts into depression including a suicide attempt. The manner in which Mathieu copes with all of these challenges and finds solace, strangely enough, in one of Cédric's past lovers Pierre (Nils Ohlund) brings the film to an ambiguous yet wholly successful climax.After viewing the film the feeling of identification with these characters is so strong that the desire to start the film from the beginning now with the knowledge of the complete story is powerful. Lifshitz has given us a film of meditation with passion, conflicts with passion's powers found in love, and a quiet film of silences and reveries that are incomparably beautiful. The entire cast is superb and the direction is gentle and provocative. Lifshitz is most assuredly one of the bright lights of film-making. In French with English subtitles. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4b20f66089d45ac95121839a5bb7401", "input": "Review: Half a dozen short stories of varying interest enlighten us about life in Finland. These stories are interwoven and each contains a scene in which a sonic boom is heard. This indicates that the events depicted happen at the same time.The film begins with a bungy jump which promises some excitement but the early stories are quite low key. The film improves so stick with it. Two broken marriages in stories that follow provide plenty of drama while a scene in a hospital gives us a terminally ill patient begging for pain relief. The last moments with his wife are both convincing and moving.While the various scenes of family life take place in Finland, the themes are of a general nature wherever you happen to live.Collections of short stories are rarely as satisfying as a good tense 90-minute drama. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02c3c9c480004db3a93a485c3261fad9", "input": "Review: That's what the title should be, anyway.This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an \"action\" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.What happens in the movie? People die.Is that it? Yes.What is the plot about? What plot?What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard \"entertainment\", then \"Made Men\" is not for you.To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't \"Made\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-736d13ede12b4479ae27e0d6ac5f6711", "input": "Review: Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccfdeacf455348e493d64bcb031b933e", "input": "Review: I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.This film is invariably included in any list of the \"nastiest\" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true (\"I found this tape...\"), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm \"hard\"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the \"it's just a film\" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d936f3a0c78b448dbaf6c78f76dd7a33", "input": "Review: \"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat\" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell(\"The Evil Dead\",\"Intruder\")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like \"Cannibal Holocaust\" or \"Last House on the Left\".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14cf2844efb84112add584ec003a4a9f", "input": "Review: Like many Americans, I was first introduced to the works of Hayao Miyazaki when I saw \"Spirited Away.\" I fell in love with the film and have seen it many times. Now I am on a search to see every film by Miyazaki. One of his earlier works is \"Castle in the Sky.\" Although it's still enjoyable, it's not as good as \"Spirited Away\" (though comparing this or any film to his 2002 masterpiece is perhaps unfair).A young boy named Pazu (James Van Der Beek) is working in a mine late one night, when he sees a girl fall slowly from the sky. When she wakes up the next morning, she introduces herself as Sheeta (Anna Paquin). But Sheeta has a secret, and before he knows it, Pazu is pulled into an adventure that will lead him into danger with pirates, the army and a lost floating city.Going into a film by Hayao Miyazaki means you can expect one thing: a sense of wonder and magic. Many filmmakers have tried, but no one can create a sense of magic and awe like Miyazaki. Watching a film by Miyazaki is like experiencing a fantastic dream from your childhood.Because the film is animated, dubbing the film does not pose much of a problem because it is next to impossible to determine whether or not the lip movements match up to the words. It also helps that the translated dialogue is well-written and voiced by talented actors. The voice acting is varied. James Van Der Beek fares best. He brings an irresistible enthusiasm and excitement to the role of Pazu that is perfect for the character. Anna Paquin is nearly as good as Sheeta. She's frightened by the events going on around her, but she knows what she has to do. Mark Hamill is unrecognizable as the evil Muska. He's dangerous and wants something from Sheeta, and will do anything to get it. The other voices are bad. Cloris Leachman is awful as Dola. Leachman may have won an Oscar for \"The Last Picture Show,\" but she's annoying as the pirate leader. Leachman gives the character an obnoxious squawk that's nearly always monotonous. It's so bad it nearly ruins the film! Jim Cummings is an effective voice-over actor, but he's miscast as the general.I would definitely recommend seeing \"Castle in the Sky.\" I'll probably end up buying it myself. But even though it's not as good as \"Spirited Away,\" it's still pretty good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e129ac2cde8046f8913bd0527877825e", "input": "Review: The title of this film nearly put me off watching it. Not being a Manchester United fan, the mere mention of Beckham was a bit off putting, however I put my prejudices behind me and I'm glad I did.I wasn't expecting much of a film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film sped along with me never looking at my watch and I enjoyed every second of the film. If you liked East is East then you'll love this film. OK so the storyline is nothing new, and the classic storylines are contained within the film but it's all done very funnily, and with a breath of fresh air. The film moves very fast and keeps the audiance entertained. The occaisional funny moments are a good chuckle and not some poor attempt at humour, and best of all it's a good british comedy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4c02b3823934b82bdfc7d166565cbfa", "input": "Review: You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. \"Don't give up your day job\" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. (\"You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...\")This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. (\"All I can think about is food,\" he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By \"evil\" perhaps I mean \"inexplicable\" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: \"I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT...\" [big dramatic pause] \"...I don't think you'd like it at all.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b12e0f5e7494463da9f0c6290310c059", "input": "Review: MINOR SPOILERS!Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like \"Boyz n the hood\". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called \"message\" movies. The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called \"Higher Learning\" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire \"American History X\"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8399339931724aa7a6e0aae61a1d6753", "input": "Review: This is to the Zatoichi movies as the \"Star Trek\" movies were to \"Star Trek\"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a9f51b8d9dd455c84cadfdf6a7bb1ba", "input": "Review: The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing \"Tower of Song\" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-548ffbb772dc40acb558fd7b6ccb5a77", "input": "Review: \"Le Locataire\"(\"The Tenant\")is without a doubt one of the most important horror movies ever made.Polanski stars as a Trelkovsky,a timid file clerk living in Paris,who answers an advertisement for an apartment,only to find that the previous tenant attempted suicide by leaping from the apartment window.Trelkovsky is compelled to visit her in the hospital and there he meets Stella(Isabelle Adjani).Trelkovsky immediately moves in when the previous tenant dies and,at first,is quite pleased with having found such a nice apartment.His happiness is soon replaced by waves of paranoia as he becomes increasingly suspicious of his neighbours,who seem to be trying to provoke Trelkovsky into repeating the previous tenant's suicide.This film is great.Polanski manages to create a surreal atmosphere of dread and paranoia.Plenty of brilliant moments such as the classic scene where Trelkovsky discovers the previous tenant's tooth in a hole in the wall,or the fever dream where he wanders into the building's bathroom to find the walls covered with hieroglyphics.The photography by Sven Nykvist is truly beautiful.\"The Tenant\" is a neglected gem.It may be difficult to track down,but it is more than worth the effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94130ee38b2d46a2881c0ac2c2cde4ab", "input": "Review: From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7126936cacb44016b080f7b6386fe3c7", "input": "Review: Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-90c1d3c5f8b944acac001a504f64fb21", "input": "Review: Alas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for \"MST3K\"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This \"Hamlet\" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-03cd277daace4583a18271991b3b6e6b", "input": "Review: Never viewed this 1971 film and was greatly entertained by this great production created by the Walt Disney Studios and great animation creations. Angela Lansbury, (Eglantine Price) played an outstanding role as a woman who had taken a course in witch craft and was an apprentice who was beginning to fly on a broomstick and had quite a few difficulties taking off. Eglantine discovered many tricks and was able to make a bed travel to different parts of the world. However, Eglantine missed her final exams to becoming an accomplished witch. Mr. Emerlius Browne, (David Tomlinson) was the person who sold Eglantine this course in witchcraft and he tries to help her in every way possible to find her solution. Eglantine has a purpose to her madness and that is to stop the Nazi's from evading England. Great family entertainment and we need more films like this today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc204dc6b7164b47a32c32b86bb2dc1b", "input": "Review: A unique film...one of the best of all time. Acting, script, Quincy Jones' score, cinematography, editing, etc. -- just fantastic. As most viewers know, this movie is based on Truman Capote's book about the famous murder of a Kansas farm family (the Clutters) by a couple of young guys during a misguided robbery. I've never seen a movie that so brilliantly turned a true story into a riveting film. The actors are solid across the board, but the focus is on the killers, Dick and Perry, and the law enforcement team pursuing them. Scott Wilson, as Dick Hickock is amazing. Cocky, twitchy, and devoid of compassion he comes across so charming, oily and plausible. Robert Blake as Perry Smith is extraordinary as well -- lonely, and at once empathetic and cold-blooded. Who could fold these characteristics into one individual and make us buy it? He does, and it's brilliant! A key point of the book is how it took the intersection of these two very differently sociopathic individuals to create the critical mass to commit such a stupid and heinous crime, and these two actors make it work beautifully. Both had moments in their subsequent careers, but these performances are high water marks, and that stands for acting period. The cops are wonderful too. Leading the investigation is John Forsythe, but the other three detectives are great as well. Unlike contemporary movies where producers feel it necessary to endow police with superhuman assets or foibles, these are just genuine flatfeet, working the case with determination and competence. They seem so real. I've never seen cops on the screen so powerful in their authenticity; and I've seen most of the crime classics going way back. Really one of a kind in this respect. PARTIAL SPOILER COMING (this movie's unique in that you already know what's happened, but I'm warning for the record). Of course, the best scenes from the best crime shows and movies are the interrogations -- the intellectual fencing matches between the cops and the crooks, Mano a Mano. This movie has hands down the best interrogation scenes you'll ever see on film. Watch Dick and Perry try to bluff their way through and slowly unravel, unaware the cops have the goods on them. But the cops need to deftly prep their suspects to fracture their alibis and hopefully elicit confessions. This is some of the best acting you'll ever see. Think Glengarry Glen Ross without the showboating. To help translate the sad and horrific angles of this true story, ICB was filmed at the actual Clutter house, and I've heard the Clutters were played by film students to give them a genuine feel. It works. These seem like decent, simple folk. It makes the crime so palpable and sad. I'll stop here. It's not a feel-good movie, but it is one of the best movies ever made, and so unique, it's mandatory viewing for every film buff. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-218d1ac2a85b43fcb11d33bd6b7eb54f", "input": "Review: My Take: Makes use of its familiar plot with fine performances and a few genuine moments of excitement. The plot is familiar. An innocent man is framed for a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, the first traitor in the United States Secret Service. As his fellow secret-service agents pursue him, he tries to prove his innocence. Of course we know his innocent, and the real culprit is just around the corner, but I was still entertained by THE SENTINEL. In this time where thrillers are reduced to being too ludicrous and too abundant in action sequences, THE SENTINEL is a good lick-back to all those good old-fashioned political crime thriller. The familiar plot is elevated by neat thrilling sequences and terrific performances.Michael Douglas, the perfect man for the job, is long-running Secret Service agent Pete Garrison, who is framed for being part of a plot to assassinate the President. Former colleagues in the secret service (Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria) pursue Harrison while he tries to find out who is behind the possible assassination and the traitor in the Secret Service. This leads to a lot of chase scenes that, surprisingly (and thankfully), are never unbelievable. The screenplay also offers a subplot involving Garrison having an affair with the First Lady (played by Kim Basinger). This thankfully wasn't unnecessary like most subplots are to these kinds of films.The films director is Clark Johnson (S.W.A.T.) who manages to make the film look good. Although many have criticized it as \"should have been a TV movie\", I must disagree. Agreed, this is not a perfect film, and much of it is inspired from other action thrillers and political intrigues like IN THE LINE OF FIRE or an episode from the TV series 24 (which this film closely resembles when it comes to style and star Sutherland), but even so, this film takes its plot into serious heights and doesn't abandon even its smaller details. The performances are terrific (with a top-notch cast, its bound to be, even with the by-the-numbers script.All-in-all, I award it ***1/2, not perfect, but not far from it.Rating: ***1/2 out of 5. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-efec3f337dcd4ec6b75cff6583ae0f11", "input": "Review: Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d55c6d0c9e44cfaa057c28f273758cb", "input": "Review: One of the best records of Israel's response to the murder of Rabin.Extremely true and natural, it captured the spirit of the nation.Especially important was the response of young people to the trauma of Israel's loss and the feeling that we shall overcome. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8b2a7fd212a4cb4b66ef47619902413", "input": "Review: 0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e484cd38ad44e458960df1375879b52", "input": "Review: After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his \"normal\" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones \"mirror\" the old ones. How profound.Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-512bae2508114edd82abb655cc15cc87", "input": "Review: One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: \"how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video\". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon. Skip it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e441abd2f997445a9a606adc5c0930db", "input": "Review: Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8cfe39b69ca47b68ab3565a356d04b3", "input": "Review: Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b52149f41c4b4232a717c2a1195e5e59", "input": "Review: A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some \"poopie\" show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48c3425c74884f8ab37cdfcc04f736d0", "input": "Review: A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he \"accidentally\" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy – what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58fd36e119f443d79ed515d3262b8d70", "input": "Review: Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in \"The Divorce of Lady X,\" a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c68c91a00e7e4cd7b32e662cc693f9a9", "input": "Review: I bought the video rather late in my collecting and probably would have saved a lot of money if I bought it earlier. It invariably supersedes anything else on those \"Cosmo's moon\" nights. Cher and Olympia certainly deserve their awards but this is really a flawless ensemble performance of a superb screenplay. What? You don't know what a \"Cosmo's moon\" is? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e1a880c45ca04b4383dced13201a5112", "input": "Review: This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-18a9d6e7ccc04b899b71f35c14803b92", "input": "Review: Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: \"Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!\". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times. In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past. A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ec7c2a1e1a24d029ac597c98891c182", "input": "Review: Following the brilliant \"Goyôkiba\" (aka. \"Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice\", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel \"Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme\" (aka. \"Razor 2: The Snare\", 1973), this \"Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban\" aka. \"Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold\" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, \"Sword Of Justice\" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third \"Hanzo\" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. \"Who's Got The Gold\" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in \"Who's Got The Gold\", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6002f7cfaef4d8a848f3daf36896e6d", "input": "Review: This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched \"Surface to Air\" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4864a76267bb46f284cc2fc0bfa65262", "input": "Review: i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was, 'oh god not again!'. it's so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason, though, i stayed and watched it 'til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors, hoping they'd give me something to cheer about.and surely, ken and helena can act. also, the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point.helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that's just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh's character...this was a triumph of acting, the movie itself is nothing unique.see if you are an acting student...if you're looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it's sean penn serious! oh my, that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes...not for escapists though. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8a15904a6f24cad827b69697a52ad84", "input": "Review: This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a9e3fb901844519880bc288ca70a228", "input": "Review: In 1948 this was my all-time favorite movie. Betty Grable's costumes were so ravishing that I wanted to grow up to be her and dress like that. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., was irresistible as the dashing Hungarian officer. Silly and fluffy as this movie might appear at first, when I was eight years old it seemed to me to say something important about relations between men and women. I saw it again the other day; I was surprised to find that it still did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a75eeb7d5b114023a29cfff9e1220ce4", "input": "Review: I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about \"Berserkers\" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-63598832e35542bdb17a15590dda33fa", "input": "Review: As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including \"Pittsburgh\") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as \"The Sand Diviner,\" who foretells all that will happen. The supposed \"happy ending\" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dccb7a413ac42e5a7634d33fd771d0b", "input": "Review: This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in \"zero\")I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0c2b9f660ff44159c24ee0dfcaf41f3", "input": "Review: This film is great. As often heard, it is indeed very realistic and sometimes brutal, but unlike some other people I am clearly not of the opinion that it is depressing, negativistic or dismantling Austria as a proto-fascist society. Quite the contrary: While there are indeed some very heavy scenes in HUNDSTAGE and some characters are to be called very bad persons, at the same time you watch love, beauty and humor in Ulrich Seidls film. And that's exactly what distinguishes HUNDSTAGE for me from other films that try to show the lives of the 'ordinary people' in an intense, realistic way; their hustle, their wishes, their dark sides: Seidl clearly never tries to prove, that the lives of the working-class people are trash! In my opinion, viewers who come to this conclusion seem to be very afraid of admitting, that nearly nobody's live is as 'clean' and 'normal' as we would like other people to believe. And that every live has its dark and often depressing sides. The most beautiful scene: The old Viennese man, watching his old girl dancing 'the oriental way', as he is calling it. I think everybody who finds this scene ugly lacks a sense of beauty and should ask themselves what it is, that's proto-fascist: The characters in HUNDSTAGE or viewers, who are turned off by the body of a 70+ year old woman, dancing with all her charms for her lover. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78c0ca7fb5654f51abea980bc369437b", "input": "Review: \"Welcome to Collingwood\" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film \"Big Deal on Madonna Street\", directed by Mario Monicelli.The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bcd9e6684444f9baf9ed046184e4142", "input": "Review: Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem \"normal\", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e48f72ed4be0465aad00aa87dbc300e9", "input": "Review: Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56a08fa277d14c2cb0030e27ccf314f4", "input": "Review: I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the \"dating\" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c861746ddcb64c6ab2465e91a5d6e9be", "input": "Review: Zane and Beringer will keep you on the edge of your seats. I don't typically go for military/war movies, but this was worth my time.It was serious, but it was also humorous. Beringer's character proved to be heroic and honest. No matter what, you know that he's got your back.Zane's character developed throughout the film. He wasn't just a suit, he definitely proved that he could be a hero and handle a gun.The ending through me a little though. It didn't really go with the action throughout the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, nonetheless.It's worth checking out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a593ed08b1e841379c2af6e825860f35", "input": "Review: If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -\"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad\".Yes it could.I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3f57d5a3ba54f7c984f636866d61e7c", "input": "Review: Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of \"Second Name\". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d78d771e3f8f473f8bcccd17768a2b9f", "input": "Review: I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-177340abe75541f3ba9c0397921b2c3f", "input": "Review: A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a \"ripoff\") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!). The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0d481009218467bac03e9d6abcf0274", "input": "Review: I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been \"The Vanishing Bride\" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-26550c0bba654cc7affcac11148cc36a", "input": "Review: I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5814240440854f3d9b2a87a541c3bfb4", "input": "Review: Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.) OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick \"P*nis or bed?\" when she told him she'd \"get him a new one\" after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-712f61e9da3f425c9b796d53cc40c7a2", "input": "Review: This is probably one of the worst \"wanna be a low budget hit films\" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the \"super fast\" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5bdefbf4f414f2a86b23104e0635dc8", "input": "Review: The third installment of the \"Carnosaur\" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the \"Carnosaur\" and \"Xtro\" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an \"Alien\" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the \"Xtro\" franchise, all the \"Carnosaur\" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the \"sequels,\" I guess. Obviously \"Carnosaur\" and \"Xtro\" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cb3dffbf7074251ab5c252f291a927f", "input": "Review: A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in \"Severed Ties\" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dff4e5ee9c39402b830488f51f8fbd6c", "input": "Review: Omigosh, this is seriously the scariest movie i have ever, ever seen. To say that i love horror movies would be an understatement, and i have seen heaps (considering the limited availability in New Zealand, that's quite a lot), but never before have i had to sleep with the light on...until i saw The Grudge.Some may say that it is a rip off of The Ring (both based on Japanese horror movies), both similar (yet different) story lines, but the Grudge holds its own as a terrifying movie - seeing at at the cinema, i even screamed at a certain point in the movie.The acting is great, particularly from the supporting characters - KaDee Strickland is fantastic and steals the show, she is such an enthusiastic person. Jason Behr is a real hottie, and William Mapother looks like he is having fun. However, while i am normally a fan of Clea DuVall's, she doesn't really seem into this movie. Of the supporting characters, hers probably got the most depth and back story, but she doesn't seem like she is all there. As for Sarah Michelle Gellar, well, she stays about the same through all her films and roles doesn't she? The ghosts were genuinely scary, the music and sound effects were chilling (particularly the noise being made when KaDee Strickland's character answered the phone in her apartment), the ending was cool too.Super highly recommended. 9/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c931476023544b2ab748176964587c6", "input": "Review: This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-483eef44cb174207829eeefb449a47f3", "input": "Review: Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.Since its release, \"A Chinese Ghost Story\" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1d9161340f943bdb865013ad143e1c4", "input": "Review: My boyfriend and I both enjoyed this film very much. The viewer is swept away from modern life into old Japan, while at the same time exposed to very current themes. The characters are realistic and detailed; it has an unpredictable ending and story, which is very refreshing. The story is made up of mini-plots within the life of several geisha living together in a poor city district. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a realistic romance or life in old Japan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cdc63ba61164b1f88995a1e675104b7", "input": "Review: SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana KimmellFifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like \"the killer will turn us into coleslaw.\" Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b237cbf2f594ce78810977b4c2586e1", "input": "Review: A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless \"10 Items or Less\" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.Title (Brazil): \"Um Astro em Minha Vida\" (\"A Star in My Life\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-601c0988bc0c4effa656c48d7fb8cfd9", "input": "Review: Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the \"snake\" and run off with it into the Asian night.One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what \"love\" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's \"The Cat People\", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.Lewton also made occasional use of what he called \"buses\". Lewton's first \"bus\" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two \"buses\" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find \"The Cat People\" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-359151a78f7d45779ebccf7f845ca3ab", "input": "Review: Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58f6e290fc114da29a647b193b29b62d", "input": "Review: This movie is like the thousand \"cat and mouse\" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable \"unlikely\" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and \"National Treasure\" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed191f5bbcef4a33bc067ce706f43116", "input": "Review: This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called \"Cool Ethan\" or \"Cheaters Never Win\" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5f40ce4f3c44ea68c66d0f3315c66ec", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e66688fe5504b3a8dfbbc872db02bb0", "input": "Review: Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! I was appalled. Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his \"thumbs up\" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.What a pity. Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a \"free\" ticket viewing.Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.Shame shame shame on what they do!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-36a09f1526714b0f893db1e61eae6226", "input": "Review: James Stewart stars in a classic western tale of revenge which ties in with the fate of the films other star the Winchester Rifle. Stewart is it goes without saying excellent adding some cold hard obsession to his usual laid back cowboy. The story follows the fate of a Winchester rifle and its owners after being won in a competition by our hero and stolen by the man he is hunting.We meet a selection of gamblers, gun fighters, Indian traders and bank robers as we follow the rifles path through Indian battles, bank heists etc. The supporting cast are all solid with Dan Durya standing out as Waco Johnny Dean the live-wire gunfighter with an itchy trigger finger. Also as a trivia note a very early appearance from Rock Hudson as an Indian chief.The end showdown is a classic a tense rifle battle fought at long range in and around a rocky outcrop. Throw in some good old western action, fist fights, shootouts and horseback chases it makes for a rollicking western adventure. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce4726edb7af4af7a07b630ee95974b9", "input": "Review: 11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges.... Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out. The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb5979960d3541ebaae57421b6fbbbbb", "input": "Review: Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4716776b63f040e9ad5843112cf52ff4", "input": "Review: Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel (\"The Usual Suspects\", \"Three Kings\") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of \"THE EVIL DEAD\" films and \"The Gift\", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9798acf52a0a4e3aa07624078d0d4c57", "input": "Review: This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action! Brilliant movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc939686a82c43afa2b1cf41747b19bc", "input": "Review: That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9d240efb788460f8991697e533127d6", "input": "Review: A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e8398fbc12443038174a7d34f7d5d22", "input": "Review: While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ce7deef3db1482e9d8cbb8fb12c0e6a", "input": "Review: I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-552f38f6068940a0a07d1d8cfa8ef8c4", "input": "Review: This video rocked! Eddie is one of the funniest comics I have ever seen. Not only does he have class, he makes some of the funniest observations on history and culture that I have ever seen. Eddie is the most original and most intelligent comic I've seen in a VERY long time. Tell all those other stand-ups to get off the stage and let this \"executive\" reign! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da432f8505ce4870a54b8c6cfa374b6b", "input": "Review: House of games has a strong story where obsession and illusion play a big part. A psychologist offers to help a patient with his gambling debts and gets caught at the game.Have you ever felt fascination for something that was both dangerous and wrong? Watch what happens if you pursue this urge and go all the way. Sit on the edge of your chair as tricksters are being tricked and victims turn into perpetrators. You're never sure of who is exactly who in this movie.This is both a quality and a drawback of the script. As the movie ends you feel that the story lacks a bit of consistency. But all this is largely compensated by the excellent psychological development.This is definitely one of the best movies about gambling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9754366e435474b97175ae2d16b1bba", "input": "Review: The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9dc589af1d3499d9fe0d241c541ec2b", "input": "Review: Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-90e9a21eb1f94ceaa08104e6dffe5886", "input": "Review: The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes. The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame. One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: \"Killer of his own men.\" Char isn't given this label. The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old. The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year. But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01d908cb70a6434b9532efac149684fb", "input": "Review: Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5062a5b91bc418ab771ac46c0f4e132", "input": "Review: This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-64a9752c24704dbeafec576b4b4f3786", "input": "Review: This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying \"when is someone going to think of the children!\". While watching this movie, I kept thinking \"where'd you hear that?\" or \"that can't possibly be true\" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest \"anthem\" ever, \"Stand and Fight\", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, \"Dance With Me\" and \"Still the One\".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number \"We Almost Lost Detroit\" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch \"Rust Never Sleeps\" or \"The Last Waltz\" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c56d2c0c438b4eec9f8e0009d78913c5", "input": "Review: When I started watching the show I said \"Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!\". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cce373e9cd0f470d9408eefd2c673e7c", "input": "Review: And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!Before I saw \"The Young Victoria\", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it. Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design! The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother! BRAVO: 9 out of 10! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb3365f7103040aa94084eb4d55e4743", "input": "Review: I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.Why was this movie ever made? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f6fb784d5134d27bd88397709910b50", "input": "Review: For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. -Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-883c475ad8984b74ae260da1cda7cafb", "input": "Review: Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)This episode is split in 2 parts.first part is Tony's \"Dream\" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains \"his life\". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die. If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb. Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.10/10 no doubt. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33d72601f1bf46619e10bee57ad994c9", "input": "Review: Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no \"Stifler's Mom\". She's way sexier.I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her \"separated at birth\" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced \"Deux Femmes En Or\", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6dacf563e83e41b8937b69fa79aa7b41", "input": "Review: This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-520de14ea3584c819affba6b99d01094", "input": "Review: The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a \"thriller\" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67ade3e0d5c349e0b6fda52ad82fa4f1", "input": "Review: (Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. Here's our story... Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says \"Come work for me!\" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying \"Yes\" is a no-brainer.Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.The \"comedy\" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is \"wounded.\" The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac5f1c84de364de5a922cb3b02e54338", "input": "Review: I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in \"The Lonely Lady\"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c71945faeba54584bf9c50a0db23d256", "input": "Review: RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in \"Three on a Match\" (1932) and a \"flower girl\" in both \"This Side of Heaven\" and \"The Key\" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the \"stolen\" brooch, the \"red hair\" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b78a2ff93d14ea58cbd64cacb0a9fe7", "input": "Review: Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?I will try anyway. The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified. The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth. During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life \"with a grin on my face.\" Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, \"God forgive me for the time I've wasted.\" Bravi tutti! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa000799826a406a85f39304691f141c", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82541ee767ee4e8d93e035434609d94a", "input": "Review: I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-705aa3daa3bb41ed821455e5d9699cbb", "input": "Review: I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-26a0ed5cdbdc43bb88f08a10789d0be1", "input": "Review: This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06d0c03a112d43409ed41c8d278d30a4", "input": "Review: If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: * While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators –even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30d5e18093a14496a816c4665b55360c", "input": "Review: Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc36c66e265d4b6f8314a871f18f7570", "input": "Review: This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of \"charming loser\" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an \"Ejaculate on the cookie\"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked \"The Other Sister\" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.2 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e48e7aa68cb4be49666b79f44c3c82e", "input": "Review: What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de79ef66df2e4338be2b4d50cb14ae01", "input": "Review: I loved Dedee Pfeiffer (is that spelled right?) in Cybil. Haven't seen her for awhile and forgot how much I missed her. I thought she did a great job in this. The supporting cast was pretty good too. In some angles, the daughter even looked like a young Nicole Kidman. The abductor was pretty creepy and the story generally had some good twists. The young boyfriend was a hottie. I thought the husband definitely had something to do with it for sure.Just got the Lifetime Movie Network for Christmas and am loving these movies. Kept my interest and I'll watch it again when they rerun it. Can anyone else recommend any similar movies to this? You can post on the board or send me a private email if you want. Thanks in advance. Aboutagirly. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dec2521d930845a6bd930fb6e8d591ba", "input": "Review: I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb5fae9104174f21bd19b9522215578e", "input": "Review: Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. To think...this is the film that beat out \"A Streetcar Named Desire\" and \"A Place in the Sun\" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, \"The African Queen\" and \"Ace in the Hole\" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that \"Ace in the Hole\" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though \"An American in Paris\" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-63ba01d4342b40e5b86071002e4e3d06", "input": "Review: If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. ***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers \"Z\" goods! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b36597531d04376b1241769a6b5f082", "input": "Review: This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aad0648daf1241fe81c4fae9b2384b50", "input": "Review: I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e97cc870fcb44198262df1c7229162d", "input": "Review: It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a59558251f354af0bac150fdbd01f61e", "input": "Review: By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish. It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation. This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c45b065396074c91b02710dcbe168260", "input": "Review: Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a78fed3d350e4e9ea6e9abf957ac60e6", "input": "Review: This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59414b0878e3472daf052291fc386a60", "input": "Review: I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on \"Cliffhanger Theater\" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, \"acting\", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like \"thought\" or \"introspection\". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled \"up/down\" and \"fast/slow\". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of \"Gangbusters\". It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling \"DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!\" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, \"Phantom Creeps\" had a better plot, and \"Undersea Kingdom\" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than \"Radar Men\", but it's an OK time-waster. BTW...why \"Radar\" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been \"Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a848c01d2a04c369322771f91e7f1e3", "input": "Review: There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4708753eb32a4e43b29d1d413fb85859", "input": "Review: OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The \"twist\"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for \"plagues\" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the \"shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3f60045420d4ba889caa3d144ad491a", "input": "Review: One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: \"how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video\". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon. Skip it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3b8e18426e443d78575ac6a185cd872", "input": "Review: \"Laugh, Clown Laugh\" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of \"ick\" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68e836a5a2b64d7bac10348bf38956cb", "input": "Review: Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, \"Foxes\" really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did \"Taxi Driver\" four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on \"Happy Days\". He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34c708fb09dd43818e02f926b746041f", "input": "Review: No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6df200644d994bc883f6f4a13deeb4d8", "input": "Review: SPOILERS ALERTHomeward Bound: The Incredible Journey is an important film from my life because it's the first film I remember seeing in the cinema of my home town as a 4-year old scamp. The story is based on the Sheila Burnford novel, and is a reason why it's not possible to write this one off as a brainless Lassie clone.The basic story: Two dogs and a cat happily live in the Seaver family when the new husband to the mother of the three children, gets a job in the city and they have to temporarily move into inner San Francisco while the animals are sent to a ranch to live for a couple of months. The bonds between the animals and the children they watch out for are especially strong, and Shadow the golden retriever and Sassy the Himalayan cat are heartbroken as the children are, though the young and happy-go-lucky American Bulldog known as Chance is a little less concerned and somewhat cynical (due in part to his voice-over explaining his being abandoned as a pup, picked up to an animal shelter, and being bought by the family), though his growth as a character during the story provides much of the important storytelling.The three pets escape the ranch and head off into the wide and dangerous wilderness (fantastic wilderness settings by the way), driven on by Shadow's instincts of direction. They meet several perils along the way, hoping to make it home, while the family and the ranch hosts are suddenly concerned about the animal disappearance. There are funny moments all the way through, great dialogue between the three animals and hilarious lines (see - memorable quotes), and a touching comradeship that grows between the main characters during the course of the storytelling, punctuated by moments of sadness (such as when Sassy's arrogance of trying to cross a river without getting wet causes her to fall in the river and get washed down a waterfall, leaves a moment of loss that is felt deeply by the viewers).Somehow though, I fail to see what the inclusion of saving the girl lost in the wilderness adds to the story and the journey they take. Somehow, it seems a little unnecessary as part of the story.The ending cranks the stakes higher when shadow falls into a pit in a trainyard and having hurt his leg, finds it hard to get out and gives up, exhausted, followed by Chance climbing in with him to persuade him to climb out, telling him how important he is to him and how he's pushed them this far so he shouldn't throw it all away so easily. The way that this scene (brilliantly done) isn't concluded leaves an ambiguity that carries on into the final scene when Chance and Sassy return home, but Shadow is nowhere to be seen. Then just as all seems lost, he slowly appears, and is reunited with the family. Chance's conclusion at the end speaks of the comradeship that has developed between he and his fellows on the journey, and the realisation to what home really is from his long journey to get there, leaves a fine epilogue to demonstrate how much his character has grown, but also how the other two have as well. Hang on a second, I think I'm going to cry...Anyway, I haven't read Sheila Burnford's book, so I don't pretend to know where the differences between book and film lie. But this is a film that all the family can watch, and while the tots will love the talking animals, older viewers will understand the plot line better (as I found when I watched the film again after several years without seeing it). This film is a masterpiece in cinema, and I suggest that if you haven't seen it you go out and get it!And please avoid the sequel (see my review for Homeward Bound II!) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fccd57e6e9c4e8fa1a37273a7ab227a", "input": "Review: This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-60d3c8fc7427419dacd09e692a24bf4d", "input": "Review: This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73222f15bb8e4563b3af545f7da0cf87", "input": "Review: Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and \"MTV\" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.I was wrong.Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main \"Hero\", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of \"Wait, when did they say that? What?\". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a0fdd88790b469bb2b3e79e6984461c", "input": "Review: This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a67dedfbb3bd40b39231874ead43b4e6", "input": "Review: This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between \"Kung-Fu\" and \"H R Pufnstuff\" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, \"cliffhanger scenes\", and not too much romance or other \"icky\" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! \"Dialogue\" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that \"dialog\" is the proper spelling. While \"dialog\" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b617edaaa79f4289ac8cc3a852e63a40", "input": "Review: This is an awful film. Yea the girls are pretty but its not very good. The plot having a cowboy get involved with an Indian maiden would be interesting if the sex didn't get in the way. Well, okay it might be interesting, but its not, because its so badly paced and and only partly acted. I can only imagine what the close ups of the dancing tushes looked like on a big screen, probably more laughable then they do on TV. (I won't even mention the topless knife fight between two women who are tied together and spend the whole thing chest to chest. Never read about that in the old west) This is a film that requires liberal use of fast forward.I like schlock films but this is ridiculous. There is a reason that I don't go for this sort of films and that they tend not be very good, the plot taking a back seat to breasts. The original nudie cuties as they are called were originally nudist films or films where there was no touching but as the adult industry began to grow the film makers either tried to be clever or tried to exploit something else in order to put butts in seats. The clever ones were very few which only left hacks who were of limited talent. The comedies often came off best with the humor approaching the first grade level, infantile but harmlessly fun. Something that could rarely be said about any other genre cross dressed as a nudie.The Ramrodder looks good and has a couple of nice pieces but its done in by being neither western nor sex film.I need not watch this again.Of interest to probably no one, the rapist and killer in the film was played by Bobby Beausoleil, a member of the Manson family who was arrested for murdering a school teacher not long after filming wrapped.Obviously these sort of things will ruin some peoples lives. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-65caf25615e74476ba75f526dc267b5d", "input": "Review: Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and \"characters\".The \"Incubus\" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9240ebd049cb4e11a5fc16a6c60aa0a8", "input": "Review: *some spoilers*I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like \"It's a Wonderful life,\" this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d3655ffe79a43108d3985b1101e20ef", "input": "Review: I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would \"hook up\" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b27812c00ed4dc0a264ed4f97ded515", "input": "Review: I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cda9eb6d25bd427ca0424e724c147e50", "input": "Review: I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e19bf08a42944e37af9746a2d6882b51", "input": "Review: Netflix should mention this short feature on the info for Silk Stockings. Superior in every way to that over-produced fluff. This had much better Cole Porter songs and lots more energy. Silk Stockings turned out to be a big disappointment. Fred was getting too old for this sort of thing, though the dances and Cyd are lovely. I will be on the watch for the Garbo--Melvyn Douglas version of Ninotchka. Was Peter Lorre ill during the making of Silk Stockings--he seems to be very passive in the more active numbers and with less lines? Very glad that I ran across Paree--Paree by pure accident. Made the whole experience a lot more enjoyable. Bob Hope, as a simple \"song and dance man' is pure joy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9ed74e2af8c4a2791c2ebe337a48d1d", "input": "Review: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict persists and while the world may be aware of the violence surrounding the division of the two countries, few have a clue to the other aspect of the division - the group of people who want peace and work toward eradicating the separation. Eytan Fox, in THE BUBBLE ('Ha-Buah'), has created a much needed alternative viewpoint of the schism, electing to tell a story that contains some fine humor, a lot of love, and a taste of brutal reality. It is a window into a situation that begs for understanding.In Tel Aviv three close friends are roommates: Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), a beautiful young woman with strong opinions; Yali (Alon Friedman), a very 'out' gay young man who works in a popular café; and Noam (Ohad Knoller), a handsome, somewhat shy fellow who, in addition to his day job in a music shop, is a member of the National Guard and therefore spends his free time serving as a guard at the city's checkpoints. It is during one of these guard duty weekends that he meets a young Palestinian named Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), and a mutual attraction occurs. The three friends decide to 'stowaway' the illegally present Ashraf (whom they nickname with an Israeli name) and while Ashraf and Noam settle into a love relationship, Yali hires Ashraf at his café, and Yali and Lulu both proceed to find love interests, too. All goes well until Ashraf must return home for his sister's wedding. Though in Tel Aviv Ashraf has been able to be openly gay with Noam, life is far different in Jerusalem: Ashraf is told he must marry his sister's groom-to-be sister. In an attempt to rescue Ashraf from his fate, Noam and Lulu disguise themselves as French reporters to gain access to Ashraf. In a moment of supposed seclusion, Noam and Ashraf are discovered kissing by the groom-to-be, and this act gives cause for blackmail in order for Ashraf to remain 'in the closet'.While the young people in Tel Aviv are dancing at an event to raise attention for peaceful coexistence, an attack occurs in Jerusalem - one that has grave consequences not only immediately, but also in the revenge mission Ashraf must now assume. The ending is tragic on many levels and it underlines just how serious the problem between these two countries is.The acting is so very natural that from both the comedic and the tragic aspects the audience completely believes in these beautiful young people. The story finds the right balance between the serious and the lighthearted and it is this balance than makes Eytan Fox such a fine writer/director. More people should watch this important and very fine film. In Hebrew, Arabic, and English with subtitles. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8e377a0d81941d486cd2ff443fdf253", "input": "Review: I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95e2eb5650a7477aa1353ab6dbc85b7a", "input": "Review: If you read my review of SyFy's \"Dinoshark\", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a \"so bad, it's good\" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey \"Dinoshark\", I sat down to watch \"Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy\", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e21072e8db3f474898f52f32bbf749a6", "input": "Review: \"Holly\" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b11323e6dd14554a3349682d097838b", "input": "Review: Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the \"Golden Age.\" Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how \"corrupt\" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b783e287eff64953a91a40f253cab905", "input": "Review: When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e87e1915327e4e958abdcc1b7f6a58a1", "input": "Review: ******* SPOILER! ********i saw this gr8 film a few years back, its a lovely story about a young fella who wants to drink his mothers milk at the breast but she thinks he is to old for it. he ends up lusting after another ladies breasts and ends up in competition with his brother who fancies her. throw in a jealous husband of this woman who cannot get \"aroused\" and you have a cheeky yet warm story about love, friendship and lovely pairs of jugs heheits brilliantdont be put off by sub-tit-les hehe! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00c38d174e3d464c91fa4ff3872bbc6f", "input": "Review: I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title \"Grey Matter\". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching \"Grey Matter\".I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a \"Scientific b*tch!\". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that \"scientific b**tard!\". It just sounded very awkward to me.Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeeaa09329c2459abdfba0ff44bae9a8", "input": "Review: Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a \"I need you, you need me\" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess – the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police \"encounter\" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role – a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9dbb19c5682549e193dfb8df831119ef", "input": "Review: Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9cd2daaebc514da4ad600f1b142dedac", "input": "Review: I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52f5f13411f246199c4e0d18009a6d4b", "input": "Review: I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.Although this movie doesn't have the \"horror\" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, \"House of Wax\") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest. This is a must for Vincent Price fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ca8525fa7ed4cd18e19057ad7cfca35", "input": "Review: So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod \"defacing\" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's \"freedom of the press\" line sounded silly compared to \"..Care to step outside\" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the \"turn back the world to go back in time\" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4919f0d656794bf8af6c5017de36ab56", "input": "Review: As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughableBut don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line \" If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day \" . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-39266663711c4e878c9db4a832eefc4f", "input": "Review: But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy! Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours. Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started. Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6a1800607a845ca8900d8f4496f0d43", "input": "Review: The author of \"Nekromantik\", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, \"Der Todesking\" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called \"The Brotherhood of the 7th Day\", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely \"normal\" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, \"art film\" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.The main theme of the movie, \"Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III\" was released in a limited 666-piece 8\" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting \"The Nekromantik\" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a55cf47b61cd45a4b25575b06265ceea", "input": "Review: I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbb144419cee45558b444a9b7b59c6dc", "input": "Review: Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-504b34b4341f4403998be7b677b0747f", "input": "Review: Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is anomalous: A \"Red Scare\" movie devoid of hysteria, in which the Communist threat is nothing more than the McGuffin that ignites the plot. Pickpocket Richard Widmark relieves loose woman Jean Peters of her wallet containing a strip of microfilm; unbeknownst to either of them, it harbors secrets vital to the Cold War. Peters, as it happens, was under surveillance by FBI agents who are as nonplussed by the theft as the man who's running her, cowardly comsymp Richard Kiley. In trying to retrieve the precious film, both sides enlist the help of Thelma Ritter, a streetwise old jane who's always on the earie and willing to sell what she hears.Fuller draws from an opulent palette of tempos and tonalities in telling the story, which becomes a race against the clock of escalating brutality. From the subways to the waterfront, his midsummer Manhattan takes on a sweaty sheen that's almost pungent. The love scenes between Peters and Widmark become an unstable mixture of the tumultuous and the tender, and they're scored to \"Again,\" a song introduced by Ida Lupino in Road House, also starring Widmark. The pace slackens for Ritter's beautifully written and played death scene -- among the most poignant vignettes in all noir, and a kind of mirage-oasis in a film parched of sentimentality. This is writer/director Fuller's only work in the strictest confines of the noir cycle; his later explorations of American pathology (The Crimson Kimono, The Naked Kiss, Underworld U.S.A.) never resulted in a synthesis as satisfying as Pickup on South Street. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12043d78c6c74a96be5837f4b1488632", "input": "Review: Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like \"Saturday Night Fever\", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-031f578e8f2c4c77b08a739f73c07c54", "input": "Review: Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, \"Wild Wild Sabrina\" where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfb16f2aeb5a467d89eadaa82148b73f", "input": "Review: I first saw Rob Roy twelve years ago. With little money for entertainment, I rented it for my fiancé and I to watch on a bone chilling winter's night. The movie I had wanted was gone, so I rented this instead, not expecting much, and was very much surprised with how good it was. I just recently watched it again, and loved it every bit as much as the first time. For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about Scottish outlaw Robert Roy MacGregor, a cattleman and folk hero. From the little I know about the man and his story, liberties have been taken with the facts, but it's a movie, not a textbook, and so the filmmakers can be excused. Basically, the plot of the movie is that Rob Roy borrows money from the Marquis of Montrose to buy cattle which he then intends to sell and reap a large profit from. But, his plan is foiled when the friend entrusted with the money is robbed of the cash and murdered in the forest. Our hero finds himself on the run after failing to settle the matter with the Marquis, and Mary, his wife, suffers a sadistic rape at the hands of Archibald Cunningham, a smarmy Englishman with no soul. Atrocities ensue, until, in an immensely satisfying conclusion, Rob carves Archibald up like a Christmas turkey. There are many great performances in this movie, but allow me to touch specifically on a few. Liam Neeson, as usual, is fantastic, a sexy beast you can't take your eyes off of. Honestly, this man is like ice cream: even when he's bad he's good. His Rob Roy is an honourable man struggling to provide for those who depend on him, in the best way he knows how. Jessica Lange, as Mary, gives this woman a fierceness which is a nice change from the simpering, dull movie wives audiences are usually forced to endure. You just know she doesn't take any b.s from Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Tim Roth is completely over the top with his portrayal of the evil Archibald, yet somehow, it works. All the posturing and preening, combined with some wicked dialogue, result in one of the most memorable movie villains in recent memory. Combine all of this, and the stellar work by other supporting players, with the luscious scenery of Scotland, and you have what amounts to one really, really cool movie. If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3a3d565ff4c4ee4b2b359d3a4cb8a6c", "input": "Review: A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the \"Bette of Roses\" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23299fd1b2f74281a7ee18cf6930ff55", "input": "Review: How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you \"Dark Angel\" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c2f3c7fc01a42a9959b1c6dcf4d5ad3", "input": "Review: Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who \"accidentally\" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cc1684ae70142a0aac048967b68d27f", "input": "Review: Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.Nicely done, Paul and Peter! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30311c75ab80455b807304d2e3655bd9", "input": "Review: This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eb7b2d06b80464890c30175db4f0c3f", "input": "Review: CitizenX(1995) is the developing world's answer to Silence of the Lambs. Where `Silence' terrorized our peace of mind, `Citizen' exhausts and saddens us instead. This dramatization of the Chikatilo case translates rather well, thanks to a Westernized friendship between two Rostov cops who become equals.CitizenX may also argue against(!) the death penalty far better than Kevin Spacey's The Life of David Gayle(2002).Humans are Machiavellian mammals, under which lie limbic brains (lizard-logic). Why did two kids, who knew better, stone to death a toddler they kidnapped? Why do bloodthirsty women yell `li-lilililililii' at acts of OBSCENE terrorism? -My own term for this is `limbic domination', the lizard-logic urge to dominate an `enemy'. If you have the words `enemy'/`vengeance' in your vocabulary, you're easily capable of `limbic domination'.In WWII-devastated 1980s Rostov (located at the mouth of the Don river near the Black Sea), nothing suppressed Andrei Chikatilo's urge for `limbic domination' from overpowering his layers of civilization. Chikatilo(Jeffrey DeMunn)'s easy victims were paupers, usually children, who rode the interurban train for fun, since they couldn't afford anything else.CitizenX reminds us that the denials of a rampant Soviet bureaucracy cost the lives of 52 such `lambs'. Rostov's serial killer roamed free for almost 7 years AFTER the police arrested and let him go.The politicization of crimefighting is harmful to police forces everywhere. Although policing routinely suffers from corruption all over the world, in the west, vote-grabbing by politicians can set up chronic inter-agency rivalries, stymieing a more coordinated response to crime. In the Soviet Union of CitizenX, however, Viktor Burakov(Stephen Rea)'s Killer Department was suffering from a repressive bureaucracy.Geoffrey DeMunn plays the psychosexually inadequate Chikatilo with faultless but understated authority--to the point of complete obscurity. In real life, too, Chikatilo had a lifetime's experience blending in and evading capture.His pursuer, on the other hand, sticks out as a strange bird, given to unheralded, naive outbursts. Perhaps by design, Stephen Rea gives a very strange performance as forensics chief Burakov. Rea's Russian accent is impenetrable; and his Burakov is humourless and sullen, at odds with everyone.So it's Donald Sutherland who walks away with the picture. Sutherland's Col.Fetisov, Burakov's boss, and at first his only supporter, is an overly restrained, patient Militiaman whose dignified carriage bears testimony to decades of bureaucratic machinations. His reawakening as a logic-driven yet still passionate cop becomes the film's cornerstone idealism.Joss Ackland does another turn as a vicious apparatchik, Secretary of Communist Ideology Bondarchuk, overseeing the investigation. Naturally, he quashed the arrest of the most likely suspect, a Communist, in 1984, a man carrying rope and a knife in his bag, supposedly going home: Andrei Chikatilo.Soon, he replaced Burakov with another Moscow apparatchik, Detective Gorbunov(John Wood), insisting that the investigation now focus on `known homosexuals'. The funniest scene of this sad, sad film comes during Bondarchuk's & Gorbunov's institutionalized harassment: one stupid cop earnestly reports, `As I suspected, comrade, it's fornication. I've made some drawings'--cue howling laughter.5yrs after the bodies began piling up, in 1987, the police finally tried soliciting criminal profiles. The only cooperating Soviet psychiatrist was Dr Aleksandr Bukhanovsky(Max Von Sydow), who termed the UNSUB `CitizenX'. He later also observed to Fetisov & Burakov that `...together you make a wonderful person'. We concur.The drawn-out pace, spread over a decade, perfectly captures the institutional inertia of Glasnost--`openness'--that wasn't. The contrast with Perestroika--`restructuring'--couldn't've been greater for the case. Although Chikatilo was still prowling railway stations, police plans were about to bear fruit.In 1990, Col.Fetisov was expeditiously promoted to General. His nemesis Bondarchuk disappeared off the scene, allowing the investigation to finally proceed without political interference. Staff, communications, publicity--suddenly all were available. In just one night of telephoning around, Fetisov got his depressed forensics chief access to the FBI's Serial Murder Task Force at Quantico, where, Fetisov discovered, staff are regularly rotated off serial murder cases to stave off just such psychological damage to investigators.Fetisov advises his newly promoted forensics chief, now `Colonel' Burakov, of all these changes in an avalanche of confession that becomes the movie's powerhouse watershed scene. Fetisov's is the most tender apology I've ever seen on film: `Privately, I offer my deepest apologies to you and your wife. I hope that someday you can forgive me my ignorance', he almost whispers.A HBO production, CitizenX is a film of the highest caliber. Not only do the exteriors look authentically bleak (shot exclusively in the most run-down parts of otherwise spectacular Budapest), but Randy Edelman's soaring soundtrack is entirely overwhelming--and frequently our only respite from the bleak brutality. Those who speak Hungarian will recognize the many Hungarian accents and credits.Chikatilo's actual murders are depicted as bleak, aberrant behaviour born of character flaws and ignorance in an equally bleak world. This makes the murders seem not-entirely-out-of-place--but of course they were. As President Kennedy reminded us, `we all cherish the futures of our children'.CitizenX communicates perfectly that killing is far more grisly and obscene than any vengeance fantasy might imply. Serial rapists rape to dominate; serial killers kill to dominate. So do some soldiers. Such `limbic dominators' make poor humans.WARNING-SPOILER:----------------------------------------------- The real Andrei Chikatilo WAS the world's most prolific known serial killer. Convicted, he was executed in 1992 in the manner of all Soviet Union death sentences: one shot, in the back of the head. Foolishly, such methods destroy any possibility of studying a deviant brain after death.Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------ The best outcome is always the prevention of killings, not their prosecution. Executions merely guarantee society's failure to learn from the complex reality of victims' deaths when we dispatch even anecdotal evidence of HOW/WHY they died. Nor do killers learn regret if they're dead.Vengeance doesn't unkill victims. Baying for the killer's blood constitutes nothing better than counter-domination--once it's too late.Vengeance on behalf of the grieving isn't justice for the deceased--it's appeasement of the living.(10/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a88bcad149d54c199718567e7cd3dd46", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie a few days ago, my eyes were completely fixed to the screen. Its greatness held my attention to such an extent that I focused all of my attention on it for its entire duration. I would recommend seeing it not just to fans of anime, but to anyone who likes great movies period (or who likes really weird stuff). The style of art is beautiful, the sound is perfect, and the symbolism within it is breathtaking. I've heard complaints about the weird insertion of English text in the movie, but I think the way its done is complementary to the strange style of the movie. The self-attributed description of \"Hello Kitty on acid\" doesn't do justice to this film of absolutely epic proportions. I'd like to find more works by whoever made this, and see them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1663a8b144284135a92376c01a4477d8", "input": "Review: i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is \"right\". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-64003f3099384844953dfb90424dc7b1", "input": "Review: This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.Real Rating, -10 Disgusting Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8d3473598e448fd8d821f9b1758d293", "input": "Review: The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fb6adeaf724457a86f9264a2588941c", "input": "Review: A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f9f17a9a19041c7a9462d429b9edc69", "input": "Review: The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b3fedd46cce41668baeb4e15dc78f58", "input": "Review: For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show. In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a50464028502492598359c420c08111b", "input": "Review: You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, \"Matrix\"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.I was hoping for at least a \"so bad it's good\" zombie movie, but this one is \"so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b8e816771f6415db1cb3c99f35ca3e8", "input": "Review: Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in \"The Lady Vanishes.\" She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6d26d3312eb4b95bed43aa12c9abfd0", "input": "Review: Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound\" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.Worst movie ever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7102ec0a87d5463690ff405020bc96f5", "input": "Review: In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a \"Devil Woman\". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: \"Ah me!\" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5248b7fe97f84c86adad1f6aa21cc77b", "input": "Review: A film that dramatized an understandable reluctance to face the inevitable coming of the the second world war, when a Spanish Republican, sent by his soon to be overthrown government, (Charles Boyer) infiltrates himself into England looking for support for his cause by trying to influence wealthy mine owners not to sell coal to the fascists back in Spain. He upsets the locals, getting convincingly beaten in one scene, and later in the film facing an angry crowd of miners who see him as yet another threat to their shaky livelihood. Notwithstanding socio-economic hierarchy, xenophobia, and world politics, this film expertly delves into a dark and suspenseful intrigue involving unfaithful compatriots played by Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre, and is expertly filmed in numerous darkly lit scenes set in a dreary hotel by James Wong Howe, and manages more than once to get under your skin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ba3126df09e4026bd757b12af35eb8d", "input": "Review: Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones (\"Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.\") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves (\"D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement).\"). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, \"It's Anna!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d47f81cb3e674552aeeb741ea5d84c15", "input": "Review: Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22450739a94d4c46bc01afdea57a480b", "input": "Review: Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29f5ef44ad7c4d84a487921e2736880a", "input": "Review: This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3fddc275485401db987056ba11a7bc5", "input": "Review: Watching the commercials for this movie, I was fairly convinced that I was going to loathe it. For one thing, it was one of those \"loosely based on the novel\" movies, which usually means that the book author saw the script, hated it, and refused to be associated with the film. Worse, the trailer showed only the most mundane slapstick imaginable (ex: kid gets squirted in the face with a garden hose...and falls over). So when my little brother got it into his mind that this was the \"must see\" film of the season (of course, he thought the same thing about \"Cars\", \"Over the Hedge\", \"The Ant Bully\", \"Monster House\", etc, etc), I was admittedly less than thrilled.But once at the theater, the film won me over for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the writers capture 'kid dialogue' better than just about any other children's film I've ever seen. A prime example of this comes directly after the boys' principal accidentally eats a worm stuck in an egg omelet. The boys do a lame, over-exaggerated impression of the principal lecturing them, which makes it realistic since all little kids think (mistakenly) that they do great mocking expressions of their adult tormentors. Then one of the boys asks, \"Why did he say, 'alley oop'?\" Another boy responds, \"Maybe he's crazy!\" and the entire group laughs uproariously. Not an overly witty rejoinder, but exactly the kind of thing a young kid would come up with on the spot and exactly the type of remark other kids his age would find hilarious. As if to confirm it, my kid brother laughed right on cue when they were spoken on-screen; I could practically hear his voice spouting the same exact lines if he was placed in a similar situation.Another reason the movie works is that the writers manage to work in issues like bullying, sibling relationships, the new kid in school, and peer pressure/conformity without making any of them seem as though they were subplots for some after school special. For example, the bully (Joe) isn't stereotypical; he's definitely bad but not pure evil, and just enough of his home-life is revealed that the audience feels sympathy for him and understands his bullying origins. There's also no \"cue the dramatic music\" moment where Billy ('Worm Boy') realizes what a complete tool he's being to his younger brother Woody, and yet, by the end of the movie, some type of minor transformation has been made. There's some realism here in the way the characters resolve situations and in the way they relate to each other, and very little of it comes across as corny.The only drawback to the movie comes in the form of an absolutely laughable dance scene that even the creators of the infamous McDonald's dance party in \"Mac and Me\" would scoff at. Why oh why was it put into the movie?? Did Austin Rogers (Adam) pull a Macaulay Culkin and refuse to take the role unless he was given a vehicle to showcase his oh so impressive dancing skills? The entire sequence definitely did not need to be there and had slightly less comedic value than any given show on \"The History Channel\".Overall, though, this movie was excellent, and the length (about an hour and twenty minutes) was just about perfect. One of the best, most realistic live action kid films you'll ever see if you're ever around children or just remember what being a kid was actually like. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd869605fffd4ac1a0a4340d2cc73b12", "input": "Review: \"Don't Drink the Water\" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind \"The Honeymooners\". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from \"Pooh\", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in \"The Hustler\" and \"Soldier in the Rain\". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in \"Bonnie and Clyde\" and \"Rachel, Rachel\" None of the other actors do particularly well either.Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.1/2* out of 4 stars Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcfe65e71bf54bb9b6a4cce47e844ed9", "input": "Review: I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-872e7846cd494ea69a7951b7f4c32957", "input": "Review: The \"documentary\", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b5490f4c38946ecb525b780bdd946ba", "input": "Review: A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the \"funny\" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa59e602ba924176ba98ff2999fd85bc", "input": "Review: I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel \"Wonder Boys\" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel \"The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay\" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of \"Spider Man 2\", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting \"Dodgeball\" and the genius short film series \"Terry Tate: Office Linebacker\". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.It is. Literally.Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, \"I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible.\" Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. \"I imagine it must be what death feels like,\" he says.The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, \"What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?\" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.The title \"The Mysteries of Pittsburgh\" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of \"why\" is one of the worst things a movie can have. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8228680a06b41c3b6b4f223f115d6fd", "input": "Review: This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the \"Best Film of the Year\". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce588d3b98ab4c9cb502f68b7675ac4a", "input": "Review: I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55157d07f0a440a689c4421b34747dd5", "input": "Review: Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the \"prequel\" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-392410a9fe4d43588c83fa36bc4fb1ec", "input": "Review: now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a6a65c01fc54fc0a974c27bd4f943f2", "input": "Review: Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-607ff915dbbd478cb2e96e9dbc35c6a9", "input": "Review: \"Jake Speed\" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).But with all this going against it, \"Jake Speed\" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me \"Hey, why not try to be a good person.\"The story is essentially a \"stranger in a strange land\" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.It's because of this that \"Jake Speed\" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as \"Jake Speed\" would get a chance. (\"Due South,\" a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)Sure, \"Jake Speed\" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfb21f1602234704b2c3a846c1803b32", "input": "Review: It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- \"Rage of the Werewolf\", \"Werewolf Tales\" and so on.\"Blood of the Werewolf\" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, \"Blood Reunion\", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.The second story, \"Old Blood\", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.And finally we have \"Manbeast\", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the \"twist\" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14ab81ae46e2404e8b9af8307cc7c3c0", "input": "Review: WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54c49906eca04cbe92d83c26301d45cb", "input": "Review: Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c79e6061b47d4ca58ec72b1c9f9e1013", "input": "Review: First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning… The film's title \"Presque rien\" (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him… \"Non… enfin, oui… une fois, mais ce n'était rien\" (No… well, yes… once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu – he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves – but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it… Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3f17034e51e4c6c9bb41503abb08a6c", "input": "Review: James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads \"Deliverance\", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were \"Patton\", \"Papillon\", and \"All the President's Men\"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-555e244861444aabb1bac45528d05eb1", "input": "Review: First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example \"how do the furlings look like\" by creating that stupid \"previously on...\"......is simply embarrassing.Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60f970d06ec8461c8eb1e67bed2d9655", "input": "Review: Just as \"ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD\" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen \"SAVING SILVERMAN\") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.Rating: 1/2* out of ***** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d21b764e871846beb561b02f1b65db45", "input": "Review: 'The second beginning' as it's title explains, shows us the beginning of the end for the human race. Set long before the matrix existed, this short anime written by the Wachowski's shows us the world that could lay infront of us in the not to distant future, set at the turn of the 21st century, the second renaissance delves into issues common with human behaviour; greed, power, control, vanity etc.The use of robots or artificial intellegence as slaves or servents is common among science fiction/fantasy stories. The second renaissance is no exeption to this concept, however instead of a simple man vs. machine layout, this story explains the struggle that the machines put up with, the struggle for acceptance in a world ruled by humans. Where the matrix films show us the human perspective, these short animations tell both sides of the story.The second renaissance part 1 + 2, answer many questions brought up by the original Matrix film, such as how the war broke out, how the sky was blackend, what led to the use of humans as batteries and it also introduces us to the machine city called 01, which may have relevance to the upcoming Matrix Revolutions film.I won't give away too much of the story, as I do not want to ruin the experience for perspective viewers, however, I will recommend it to anybody interested in the world of the matrix or simply anybody interested in Japanese animation (anime).9/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ee3032e62d04fb483cfd361e916a2c4", "input": "Review: The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, \"Love in Paris\", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfe4f39521a544aebd9eb3d619c4968e", "input": "Review: This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9614410011354da588a43d6e5a4b4eed", "input": "Review: I work with children from 0 – 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day\" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-229ea0723b084c02afaaebb711a22c49", "input": "Review: This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54f881d22b65435d8cbaaef53a2d9606", "input": "Review: I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.\"Splatter University\" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c50a3bef9a1b43e0824425ab02f7e6d7", "input": "Review: This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44621408c71a46fa850fb01257b59e80", "input": "Review: Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-526ad583ff874151baf019cc71f36b26", "input": "Review: This is an absurdist dark comedy from Belgium. Shot perfectly in crisp black and white, Benoît Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog) is on fine form as Roger, the angry, obsessive father of a family in a small, sullen Belgian mining town. Roger is a photographer who, along with his young daughter Luise, visits road accidents to take photos. He is also obsessed with winning a car by entering a competition where the contestant has to break a record - and he decides that his son, Michel, must attempt to break the record of perpetually walking through a door - he even hires an overweight coach to train him. Michel dresses as Elvis and has a spot on a radio show called 'Cinema Lies', where he describes mistakes in films. Luise is friendly with near neighbour Felix, a pigeon fancier. Roger is a callous figure as he pushes Michel right over the limit during the record attempt, which almost results in his death. Interspersed throughout the film are Magritte-like surreal images. It's undeniably charming and well worth your time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fb201cf2547468699905d8306b1383f", "input": "Review: This is the story of Australian commandos who are captured out of uniform after a raid. Since they are out of uniform, they are, justly, treated as spies. As such, they are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Japanese court-martial, out of admiration for their heroism, authorizes that they be given a warrior's death. Of course, under the code of Bushido, this means that they are to be beheaded. A fate for which, as westerners, they are unprepared. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1152dddc9e454900830e4cbba14682fc", "input": "Review: This movie is like the thousand \"cat and mouse\" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable \"unlikely\" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and \"National Treasure\" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f44f49a149f1437e81755f7b8030dda8", "input": "Review: An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec06ceb9c7ea4da7af1fd74e301c9b91", "input": "Review: How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8295b670f18842059dd97f8d9ebcc2d9", "input": "Review: I don't know how anyone could hate this movie. It is so funny. It took a unique mind to come up with this storyline. It's not your typical alien movie. These aliens are so stupid and confused. You need to rent it at least once. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-392706a156f84584baf352011be1e7da", "input": "Review: First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d9fcb739eeb49eaa17e5b6bbfe0b49d", "input": "Review: There are just so many things wrong with this movie.To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to \"The Wiz\" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the \"new Ursula\"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9f9ab6348e34057af0e1f7dda039bcd", "input": "Review: Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) was born to sharecroppers in the deep south. He joins the navy, whereupon he tells his father he will be back. The father gives him an old radio, and Brashear leaves on the navy bus. The Most valuable thing his unemotional father taught him was, \"Never quit\". After a recommendation from a white commander Powers Boothe), who admires his drive and guts, he gets sent to Navy diving school at Bayonne, NJ. He endures harassment from his pals in uniform and from his trainer, Chief Navy Master Diver, Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro), and from the commanding officer, called pappy, (Hal Holbrook, who \"has almost as many loose screws as an old car\". They all want to make him drop out, and the prejudice is quite fierce.The dangers of diving prove a further setback when he loses a leg due to an accident on board ship. Despite this setback, he tells his wife that he will train and achieve his objective, and with the help of Billy Sunday, (now both joined in commiseration in their sufferings), they train and he is able to become the first black Navy diver with his artificial limb despite the skepticism of a highly mocking and doubtful captain at the Navy Department hearing in Washington, DC to determine if he meets the criteria. An inspirational movie, showing that determination can overcome all odds. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de8981475a604d94818a1eb0bb611f61", "input": "Review: In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c655237912344d9894cd0a78e7baa2f", "input": "Review: This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed \"zany beauty\".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e2031962b244aaf8594cae2e791ce6e", "input": "Review: After the usual chase scene, Jerry accidentally winds up inside a bottle of invisible ink, which was part of a chemistry set. He quickly discovers he's invisible...so the predictable results occur, meaning he uses his new hidden condition to torment Tom. Jerry often is just defending himself, but often he has sadistic streak in him that torments the cat whenever possible, even when unprovoked.Here, he makes Tom think his eyes are deceiving him when cheese from a mousetrap disappears before his eyes, or milk from a dish. Tom can't take anymore so he tries to sleep this nightmare off, but Jerry sets fire to his paw! Man, I hope little kids didn't ideas watching these cartoons back in the '40s and '50s! I always found Jerry, the little mouse, more evil than cute.Thankfully, in cartoons, generally, whatever damage a character suffers is gone within seconds and he's back to normal. The best part of this cartoon is about two-thirds of the way through when Tom figures out what the story is with Jerry, and tries different methods to detect where the mouse is located (such as putting flour on the floor to see his footprints). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-75658c97db9d47e8b8776fe8adf9e236", "input": "Review: The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly \"present day\") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called \"Bailey Kent\" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a6bf9dd74ee41d19c4f01e128dbc684", "input": "Review: \"Happenstance\" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since \"When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). \"A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for \"Amelie,\" its French title is more apt: \"Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)\" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not. But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.(originally written 12/8/2001) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f46cfae2a3a4480bab0de8b88bcae1d0", "input": "Review: Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as \"big man\" in contrast to Spike's \"kid out of control\" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song \"This Is Not A Love Song\" and as the title of the film is quite smart.Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65f6c8b7a8cb42e98f8ef562b44757e6", "input": "Review: Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? * out of 4-(Bad) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fba620e735ab438092268e9a570aa96e", "input": "Review: Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of \"how is he going to tell her such and such\" might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8e7c77001af42a7a91f26beed9d25d9", "input": "Review: When I think of Return of the Jedi I think epic. Yeah Ewoks were in there so what? They're an interesting add to the movie (not to mention they are similar to the Vietcong who were also able to take down a technologically advanced army with primitive acts). Jedi is definitely more darker then the rest of the movies. Emperor Palpatine (portrayed by the amazing theater actor Ian McDiarmid) was one the best parts of the movie. Palpatine is so evil and vicious, Vader looks like Mr. Rogers compared to him . Speaking of Darth Vader, what an amazing end to such an iconic character. Vader is truly a modern day Greek tragedy and I think people can now especially understand and appreciate this after Revenge of the Sith came out. His redemption at the end was moving and really brings a happy yet bittersweet feeling to you. The best part was of course the special effects. It's amazing how a film from the early eighties can still stand the test of time with it's graphics. The scenes at Jabba's palace (Leia looks amazing in that metal bikini) and of course the epic three way battle at the end are still stunning to look at. In all Jedi's deep plot and emotional moments (primarily between Luke Vader and Palpatine and when Luke reveals the truth to Leia) and incredible special effects is a fitting end to one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00bb964cb727462c8953f319f88b6004", "input": "Review: Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93f2d44cfb22480e9788cbd36471f288", "input": "Review: As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58c2a3cb8f784f92b7ff2f436a181217", "input": "Review: This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext – just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago – and without needlessly humiliating his actors.4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4f5bc0420694b9091a49c2c93655a63", "input": "Review: This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7568e70e60824fdca3743d7fabaabb72", "input": "Review: Anyone who doesn't think Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is one of the greatest movies of all time needs their head checked. It somehow manages to be both completely inane and no-brainer, but also terrifying knowing and clever at the same time. One of those rare films that actually improves upon it predecessor, Bogus Journey can be enjoyed again and again. Notable highlights include the duel with Death and the ending, which is highly \"emotional\". Keanu wants to forget all that Matrix rubbish and get down to doing what he does best, Ted Theodore Logan in Bill and Ted: The Return. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15c01d948afc4f07a8f6bf41f3351368", "input": "Review: This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b82f1f56631f4bbab6092a6073698640", "input": "Review: The film \"52 Pick Up\" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno \"industry\" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie \"Boogie Nights\" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky \"good guy,\" in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. \"52 Pick Up\" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the \"sweet revenge\" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7201a8fe98149c4ae58fd0408018402", "input": "Review: So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will \"wait and see\" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d021abb43ed443b9c5e090e1f6edc75", "input": "Review: A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's \"le feu follet\" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as \"our hero\",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b76e9d3330664e20804b49d8edb2aa9f", "input": "Review: I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb539de78f084e80a50d1aba4d51af12", "input": "Review: Following the success of \"Paris, Je T'Aime\", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.Sadly, however, while \"Paris, Je T'Aime\" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of \"New York, I Love You\" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b1c2d5a7d244e3394827a08304b31dd", "input": "Review: Sure, it was cheesy and nonsensical and at times corny, but at least the filmmakers didn't try. While most TV movies border on the brink of mediocrity, this film actually has some redeeming qualities to it. The cinematography was pretty good for a TV film, and Viggo Mortensen displays shades of Aragorn in a film about a man who played by his own rules. Most of the flashback sequences were kind of cheesy, but the scene with the mountain lion was intense. I was kind of annoyed by Jason Priestly's role in the film as a rebellious shock-jock, but then again, it's a TV MOVIE! Despite all of the good things, the soundtrack was atrocious. However, it was nice to see Tucson, Arizona prominently featured in the film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bac2f28055df4646a34891d99f24a1d5", "input": "Review: Very sweet pilot. The show reeks of Tim Burton's better films...Edward Sissorhands, Big Fish, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. The cinematography, the narration, the music, the external sets all scream Tim Burton. There has to be a connection, or a STRONG influence, I just haven't researched enough to know where it is.As I've seen in the forums, yes Anna Friel is playing a poor man's Zooey Deschanel. Every time I see her on the screen I see Zooey. Don't get me wrong, Anna Friel does a great job. Her character is very sweet and lovable and you easily get attached to her. It's more of a distraction that I keep thinking \"Why didn't they get Zooey Deschanel\".Lee Pace does a great job too. I kept trying to remember where I knew him from and just looked it up. Wonderfalls!!! Great, short lived series from 2004. If you enjoy Pushing Daisies you MUST go rent Wonderfalls, which is another Brian Fuller creation….hmmmm Loved seeing Swoosie Kurtz (World According to Garp) and Ellen Greene (Little Shop of Horrors) again. Two underrated character actresses that never fail to bring it with their performances. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8b782caee5c4e0c8d0de4ff63fc82f0", "input": "Review: This is the kind of film you want to see with a glass of wine, the fire on, and with your feet up. It doesn't require that much brain-power to follow, so is very good after a long day. I would say it is very unrealistic - if you expecting anything serious, then don't bother, but it is very funny. Just the thought that a businessman would go so far as to agree to live in a slum for a while, and then actually get to enjoy it... I would definitely recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c772c633a8fb4c5b92d351aacbac7c33", "input": "Review: I thought this was a quiet good movie. It was fun to watch it. What I liked best where the 'Outtakes' at the end of the movie. They were GREAT. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0470daea18784701913a11fdd6f175b2", "input": "Review: When I think of Return of the Jedi I think epic. Yeah Ewoks were in there so what? They're an interesting add to the movie (not to mention they are similar to the Vietcong who were also able to take down a technologically advanced army with primitive acts). Jedi is definitely more darker then the rest of the movies. Emperor Palpatine (portrayed by the amazing theater actor Ian McDiarmid) was one the best parts of the movie. Palpatine is so evil and vicious, Vader looks like Mr. Rogers compared to him . Speaking of Darth Vader, what an amazing end to such an iconic character. Vader is truly a modern day Greek tragedy and I think people can now especially understand and appreciate this after Revenge of the Sith came out. His redemption at the end was moving and really brings a happy yet bittersweet feeling to you. The best part was of course the special effects. It's amazing how a film from the early eighties can still stand the test of time with it's graphics. The scenes at Jabba's palace (Leia looks amazing in that metal bikini) and of course the epic three way battle at the end are still stunning to look at. In all Jedi's deep plot and emotional moments (primarily between Luke Vader and Palpatine and when Luke reveals the truth to Leia) and incredible special effects is a fitting end to one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3679bb2290e4e56a20478b3228dd324", "input": "Review: Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. It was so slow and awfully strange. Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent. Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry! Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him. Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling. I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of \"The greatest actresses of our time\" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7809c14b19941b99044f8615318fb1c", "input": "Review: One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because \"It just won't be me\" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09aea41a028f4421b4883ad04b65cbd5", "input": "Review: Samuel Fuller's Pickup on South Street is anomalous: A \"Red Scare\" movie devoid of hysteria, in which the Communist threat is nothing more than the McGuffin that ignites the plot. Pickpocket Richard Widmark relieves loose woman Jean Peters of her wallet containing a strip of microfilm; unbeknownst to either of them, it harbors secrets vital to the Cold War. Peters, as it happens, was under surveillance by FBI agents who are as nonplussed by the theft as the man who's running her, cowardly comsymp Richard Kiley. In trying to retrieve the precious film, both sides enlist the help of Thelma Ritter, a streetwise old jane who's always on the earie and willing to sell what she hears.Fuller draws from an opulent palette of tempos and tonalities in telling the story, which becomes a race against the clock of escalating brutality. From the subways to the waterfront, his midsummer Manhattan takes on a sweaty sheen that's almost pungent. The love scenes between Peters and Widmark become an unstable mixture of the tumultuous and the tender, and they're scored to \"Again,\" a song introduced by Ida Lupino in Road House, also starring Widmark. The pace slackens for Ritter's beautifully written and played death scene -- among the most poignant vignettes in all noir, and a kind of mirage-oasis in a film parched of sentimentality. This is writer/director Fuller's only work in the strictest confines of the noir cycle; his later explorations of American pathology (The Crimson Kimono, The Naked Kiss, Underworld U.S.A.) never resulted in a synthesis as satisfying as Pickup on South Street. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a779451edab4b2eb9023f60ee0f8e84", "input": "Review: The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c90bab8d9f049cdb6ac2064a5b900dd", "input": "Review: Some moron who read or saw some reference to angels coming to Earth, decided to disregard what he'd heard about the offspring of humans and angels being larger than normal humans. Reinventing them as mythical giants that were 40 feet tall, is beyond ridiculous. There was some historical references to housing and furniture in parts of the world, that were much larger than would be needed for standard humans. These were supposedly built on a scale that would lend itself to a 10 to 14 foot human, somewhat supporting the \"David and Goliath\" tale from the bible. There is no mention in any historical references to buildings or artifacts that would support the idea of a 40 foot tall being. If I was rating this movie on my own scale, it would have been a negative value instead of a one... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-752733247e59458480d0b33225f7ebdb", "input": "Review: If you read my review of SyFy's \"Dinoshark\", you know that I can appreciate the low-budget schlock that these made-for-television movies can provide. They're stupid...they're silly...but they're still pretty fun in a \"so bad, it's good\" kind of way. So, still smacking with guilt for liking (and recommending) the undeniably hokey \"Dinoshark\", I sat down to watch \"Hammerhead: Shark Frenzy\", a SyFy Original Movie about a half-man, half-hammerhead monster terrorizing people on an island. With the SyFy Channel's sure-fire recipe for creating B-movie creature features and a cast that includes William Forsythe and Hunter Tylo, how could it possibly go wrong? Well, to my surprise, it actually misses the mark...not by much, but enough to make me not recommend it. Why? Well, first of all, its titular monster, the dreaded hammerhead-human hybrid, takes a backseat to a bunch of faux-military thugs who really become the movie's primary villain. Though the hammerhead does rack up the body count, he (or it or whatever you call the thing) only arrives just before someone is going to be munched upon and leaves directly after. The rest of the movie is filler, pitting our heroes against the aforementioned soldiers. That, to me, is just not as compelling as watching a walking hammerhead eat people! Please Read The Full Review On My Blog: www.horrormoviejournal.blogspot.com Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f585be5127c141a494a3d2ce578803ea", "input": "Review: (aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)*spoiler*This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0e24ac82c85477a846a460b1c91b3fc", "input": "Review: I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1181ddf920284fd0a2b2fc0cceb97eba", "input": "Review: I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the \"flashbacks\" could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5afb4fd0151d4b06ab790c7d38a346b3", "input": "Review: Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the \"mole\" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6d7d8b65c5643bd95912cd58dfcb088", "input": "Review: It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4f0828fd0e543e9a38eb6ff89433c90", "input": "Review: ... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, \"We get it, we get it!!!!!\" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb95739e48af47f194d1f3a0a9135f2a", "input": "Review: I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of \"1 Teenager In 10\", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1de6f0529de5450b8d2800f80548ae71", "input": "Review: Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56e8301f2dde4220ad4f595f5a01d6a4", "input": "Review: \"Intensive Care\" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage.\"Intensive Care\" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including \"Halloween\" and \"Friday the 13th\" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99feb7e024884cf4935791a208a8f0ab", "input": "Review: Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b0ef58009a24be792a1b657589dfac2", "input": "Review: I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: \"Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings\". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.You catch my thrift? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-108d7cf841a348069cbfd4e62a9fd4bb", "input": "Review: Leave it to Paul \"sex on the brain\" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d008a92fdbb64ed085b4c957deb231ab", "input": "Review: Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the \"bella, bella\" scenery of the city. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fb418e2bd574e31bb3364a8ac57f3a0", "input": "Review: Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-554c97129c544ae7922013a01d7c11e6", "input": "Review: This is a great story of family loyalty which, thankfully, doesn't resort to the usual tricks (or at least the ones I'm used to seeing in American and European films) of supersentimentality or high dramatic tension.It's very watchable and very lovable. It has some beautiful cinematography, but doesn't rely on that alone to entertain. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ea9233926dd4563ae8697d9898bce50", "input": "Review: This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from \"A clockwork orange\") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See \"A clockwork orange\" or \"Le pianiste\" instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e83efba4e74844b79b4de9e4bca9d391", "input": "Review: So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do? I will tell you! Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary! (The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfa4fc4f60384eed9eaa995306872450", "input": "Review: I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.\"666: The Child\" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than \"Godsend\") with scenes that rip from \"The Omen\" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way \"The Omen\" ends. Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32e7a353981349f99b108876490380cd", "input": "Review: I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc\". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.And yes... \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR\" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette\" and the downright tacky \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape\", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30af059bb3ff40aa972e2ccb74e6a7a2", "input": "Review: SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over (\"Crushed\", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies.\"And then he gets run over by a truck.\" Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7eb8922265824872a8822eac8168e460", "input": "Review: A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play. Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea227a1cf0e64aa7bb50072f7c2de2c5", "input": "Review: This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-57d4613160a5440294d89858bf79ba4c", "input": "Review: I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.Very improbable orphanage on Bala.Cushing and Lee at their height.Some nice scenery.Good for face spotting, and I quote, \"look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses\".Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ba75ea037fb4d17995c13d67c6850d7", "input": "Review: This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!A masterpiece! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4e78531bdd94da0ae2baa3b5d81a711", "input": "Review: One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the \"cut-out\" method of animation (a la \"South Park\"), the real talent behind \"Twice Upon a Time\" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's \"Rhoda\") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The \"accidental nightmare\" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-675aa9e670d94413b1c198c84cf40969", "input": "Review: This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of \"Deadwood\" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-38e7cf0fd6844009a8cb0f429f0ecb0e", "input": "Review: This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being \"dead\" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1a6940ce02744a2b3b3683a9c2e2453", "input": "Review: One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, \"No they didn't!\", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-84de6f7905cf430cbfbf498fcc8f046d", "input": "Review: I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d650233fed5d4459bbf6379f01765693", "input": "Review: This movie is bufoonery! and I loved it! The \"dragon lord\" (Jacky Chan) and his buddy, \"cowboy\", totally made the movie fun, meaningful, and just plain silly. The movie is a rare blend of a good vs. evil fight and (somehow) the wonders and fun that is growing up. Long Shao Ye takes the viewer through the daily activities of the young \"dragon lord\" (so named because he is the son of a wealthy family) and \"cowboy\", which include implementing clever, elaborate ways to escape studying (with the help of the entire household, including the tutor), competing in rather boyish (and idiotically interesting) ways to gain the affection of a local girl, competing in \"soccer\" (you will see what i mean) and the list goes on. Somehow they find themselves in the midst of a fight to save the a shipment of valuable antiques and the lives of several people.The movie has its serious moments. But they do not depress, but rather inspire. The playfulness of the boys are not lost in this exchange, but is actually employed against evil. What I really loved about this movie is how it ends. Not the typical confrontation (which in itself was awesome), but well, you'll see. Let me just say it truly captures the spirit of the movie.silly, witty, meaningful, and nostalgic. great movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52e50cbde5df43bebec2a43a8b88af90", "input": "Review: From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in \"Manchurian Candidate.\" A disappointment on all counts. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e86a5b42acd4c11a3f88fedce4c3792", "input": "Review: This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.Sad, very sad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e12ca9a7c4ad40b18aea82a5b74f34b3", "input": "Review: THE ITALIAN is an astonishingly accomplished film for its time. Stunningly shot, with lighting effects that are truly sublime, this is an early gem that clearly reveals REGINALD BARKER to be a pioneer director of equal standing to D.W. GRIFFITH and MAURICE TOURNEUR. How much control Thomas Ince exerted over the production is hard to know, but this film still has extraordinary power. The simple story of an Italian immigrant struggling to keep his family alive in New York, is very moving. The themes of social injustice, revenge and forgiveness are completely relevant today. The use of close-ups is outstanding and the powerhouse performance of GEORGE BEBAN is electrifying. What we need now is a really good print transferred to DVD so we can truly appreciate this early masterpiece of cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dff1bd27647648b9b4586a8aab060437", "input": "Review: not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8a8d83423ae45fe87eeec2bb641bdc0", "input": "Review: The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd572c0b811f465b8ac031c95bf93246", "input": "Review: Starlift is a pleasant and interesting throwback to those all star musical pictures that every studio was putting out during the World War II years. When you've got such stars as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Randolph Scott, etc., in the film and with such people as the Gershwin Brothers, Cole Porter, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn supplying the music, it's an easy to take film. And the plot isn't even in the way.What plot there is involves two Air Force enlisted men, Dick Wesson and Ron Hagerthy, trying to meet Warner Brothers starlet Janice Rule using as a gimmick the fact that both come from Youngstown, Ohio and Hagerthy's father was Rule's dentist as well as half of the town's. The scheme works too well as Louella Parsons is soon putting them as an item in her column. Yes, Louella's in the film as well. She must have liked Warner Brothers or Jack Warner catered to her more than the other studio bosses because she also used this studio to publicize her Hollywood Hotel radio program back in the day.But the rest of the plot also touched on the real life efforts of Ruth Roman also playing herself to get her studio and others to do shows at the Air Force bases for the servicemen and women going to Korea. Some of the names I've mentioned and others sing and perform in a show at Travis Air Force Base where a lot of this film was shot.One specialty number was shot for the talents of Phil Harris who sing/narrates a ballad Look Out Stranger, I'm A Texas Ranger aided and assisted by Virginia Gibson, Frank Lovejoy and Gary Cooper. Yup, Cooper looked like he was having a great old time kidding his image.This is the oldest of clichés when you say they don't make them like this any more, but they really don't because you don't have a studio system that has all this talent under contract. That's one thing about the demise of the old studio system we can mourn. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55baf129477b4ec6bf1426aa8ed6304a", "input": "Review: If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. I loved every minute of it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0e37ba6c384458fba4fe09e3fb3a418", "input": "Review: This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f29935618e184dc58e72435c9a4cd3ba", "input": "Review: When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth \"several thousand million years ago.\" In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call \"Radium X\" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5eedd55b4d84660b078e8534ff6cdf6", "input": "Review: My evaluation: 8/10I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), \"Soylent Green\" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat \"cookies\" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like \"Reality Show\".TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-844a631d69d44c5d8515f10aaf3dfd59", "input": "Review: The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f1b923817d74d9fa56e74c525e285ab", "input": "Review: Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying….sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better. But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm………..Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae2b4711721642899f91091422b20d1b", "input": "Review: This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no \"Who\" fan can afford to miss.Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in \"The Impossible Planet\", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e8c32e0abf7489cb738a42e009fd8e1", "input": "Review: This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f710227000246ddaaf02b6c7b20631c", "input": "Review: Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel \"Lord of the Flies\", glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other \"INTELLIGENT\" characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbb30335b0a940a8a0d1586eeb52136b", "input": "Review: When a movie shocks you with it's disturbing, brooding atmosphere, and grabs you by the throat with it's stunning cinematography, you just know that you have stumbled upon a treat, masterpiece of a film. Although with most modern movies, extremely enjoyable as some are, those that really shock you into focus are the strongest, and are the ones that are most critically acclaimed and mostly, stick with you for a life time. I say, proudly, that I am a fan of movies that disturb, not just horror movies, but those that send a vibe laden with foreboding. Movies like Breakdown and The Missing, that send a chill down your spine, making you think \"holy crap, that could happen to me\", and visually entice you, are up there with some of my favorite aspects in a movie. Because I am only 21, I did not grow up with actors like Burt Renyolds, Jon Voight and Ned Beatty, albeit I am familiar with them, I didn't watch them grow and proceed as actors, as opposed to actors now like Shia LaBouf and Justin Long. I must say, after the long hype and witnessing Deliverance for the first time, I was so admired by these veteran actors in a movie made more than 30 years ago, and still lives it's terror up in competition to modern movies. Burt Renyolds plays Lewis, the macho self appointed leader of a group of four friends on a canoe trip down a fictitious river before a dam is made, filling the whole wilderness in water. Renyolds' character is an experienced adventurer, sort of no nonsense, and filled with machismo. Witnessing him portray the tough guy, made me think differently about him as an actor, as i have only seen him as a seedy old guy or an angry politician. The dialog the director provides for his character gives him enough malice to be proved as a strong and even intimidating leader. Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty play as the novice adventurers, Drew and Bob respectively, joining in for the fun of a canoe trip. The actor that i thoroughly enjoyed watching was Jon Voight, once again I have only seen him as an older actor, however, unlike Renyolds, I have quite liked Voight's acting (and i don't regard Anaconda when I say that), for example the national treasure movies. Voight plays Ed, whom, like Lewis, is experienced in adventuring but is seen as a more reserved character, a reluctant hero/ leader and definitely lacks Lewis' machismo. The film basically opens up with the four driving into a small town while asking to find someone to drive their cars to the bottom of the river whilst they canoe the rapids and camp along the riverside. You immediately get a creepy vibe from the hillbilly characters we are introduced to, like the imbred kid who plays the infamous \"Duelling Banjo's\" at the start of the film with Ronny Cox's character Drew; and more so the two mountain men in the films pivotal and disturbing rape scene. As with all atmospheric movies, from this moment on, dread and confusion fills the characters as well as the audience and it is here we see the characters take shape and change form. The canoe trip that follows is expertly shot and it is from here the men fight against both human and nature's odds for survival. The film's cinematics do not let up, and I back that comment up with the scene in which Ed fights one of the rapist mountain men with a composite bow. As Ed falls on to one of his arrows and notices his enemy approaching him, cocks his rifle, only to shoot the floor as he falls with an arrow in his neck; was possible the greatest piece of cinematic shooting I have seen in a film. In wrapping up, Deliverance is one film, who's dread and atmosphere carry the mood across and to this date, remains one of the best films in cinematic history. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce848a6dcaa749358f367163c00effcf", "input": "Review: Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1b67657e793411e8dd47ecf0da66918", "input": "Review: This movie's origins are a mystery to me, as I only know as much as IMDB did before I rented it. I assume that before \"Starship Troopers\", \"Killshot\" was one of the countless unaired pilots that never made it to network, cable, or otherwise. The new title of \"Kill Shot\" is comically thrown into the opening sequence, the first of many quick clues that this was not ever intended for the cinema. The quick cuts, cheesy \"Melrose Place\" music, and short 2-second close-up candid shots of the main actors let you know what you're in for.And I don't mind at all. I rented this movie seeing the repackaging that puts Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards on the cover in front of a volleyball net thinking it would be funny to see them in a movie besides the SciFi travesty of Starship Troopers (an excellent book, in my opinion, not so hot a movie - but that's another review). After looking it up on IMDB, my roommate and I surmised that the pilot was dragged up after the apparent success of Troopers and Richards own career (see Bond-Girl and Wild Things references here). They threw in a sex scene involving a minor character to reach the coveted R-rated status - coveted in suspense Video Rental sections, that is. In any event, they should have left it unrated if you're trying to sell it in the suspense/softcore porn section.All in all, it's entertaining. I hate to spoil the fun of telling you it's a TV pilot, though. That was the biggest pull while watching it - when you expect a cinematic movie and get a TV show, the differences between them make themselves more clear than usual.Would I rent it again? No. Would I watch this TV show? Well, why not - it's better than Baywatch. And their meager attempts at hitting all demographics would have done well back in the mid 90s. Token black guy (who's gay to avoid the TV taboo of inter-racial dating), token Asian (Japanese, I assume from the name Koji) more adept at science and computers than talking to women, beautiful, intelligent Latina pre-med student who has everything going for her except her family's bank account - this show probably would have done ok.But as a movie it just cracks me.I gave it a 7 out of 10, considering what it was and what it was forced to become. It made for a very enjoyable evening, and that's all I ask of rentals. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4dbdb3de6e0c4b8b9e0c008799f9fd6f", "input": "Review: I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f748338e3a745eea8905cb0421de883", "input": "Review: \"Margaritas and Cock...\"This tremendously entertaining film grabs you from the opening scene and never stops delivering laughs, surprises and unexpectedly touching moments. I had more fun watching \"The Matador\" than almost any other film from 2005. It is a wacky film with an unforgettable character, played to perfection by Pierce Brosnan.Julian Noble (Brosnan) is a facilitator (hit-man) who specializes in high-end corporate gigs (assassinating rich dudes). He is also experiencing something akin to a mid-life crisis. After coming to realization that he has no real friends, no permanent home and no planned future, he stumbles into a Mexican hotel bar one night and runs into Danny Wright (Kinnear).Danny is a down-on-his-luck family man who is on the verge of losing the big business deal that just might turn things around for him. He loves his wife dearly, especially so since they lost their young son a few years earlier.The two men are chalk and cheese, hardly any common ground other than that they are in the same desolate bar one night. And somehow a conversation is struck that sets in to motion a chain of events that will change their lives forever.The friendship they form reminded me a lot of Laurel and Hardy. One is the straight man and the other is the persistent fool who gets them into trouble. The interplay is superbly timed and finely tuned, due in no small part to the wonderful performances from Brosnan and Kinnear.But make no mistake... This is Brosnan's film. He imprints one of the most memorable and despicably likable characters of the decade. He could shoot your mother and apologize immediately thereafter and you'd probably forgive him. Brosnan may be cinema's ultimate charmer, but this is his most endearing and complete performance to date. I wouldn't be averse to seeing an Oscar nod for this role.Consider one scene where he overtly ogles a high-school girl with the impurest of thoughts and utters the line, \"All blushy blushy... No sucky fucky\". He does it with the familiar Bond smirk and manages to get away with it. He manages to tell a young boy, \"Tell your mother to lose 30lbs and 20 years. Then get back to me\" without coming across as unlikable. In fact, it makes us like him even more.And yet the film manages to surprise us with some truly touching scenes, most of which come toward the end when the film takes some unpredictable turns. However, when Julian thumbs through his little black book to find someone to call on his birthday, or when Danny and his wife (Davis) console each other in their bedroom one night, the film reaches an unexpected depth of emotion.\"The Matador\" is stylish and energetic. It is constantly entertaining. And it contains a career-defining role for Brosnan as the lonely hit-man looking for normalcy, friendship and a means to do at least one good thing in his life. This is an overlooked gem in 2005 and you should make an effort to see this film as soon as possible.TC Candler of IndependentCritics.com Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6ed9fa5f86a41e8841465b75676faab", "input": "Review: This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b073c2a726b4da5885fabfc239f0b5a", "input": "Review: I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: \"Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?\" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f196c1ce5750499e8ab3622b9991ff96", "input": "Review: I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a \"fun\" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f1653cacf144d7e8c7c88a7ffebf785", "input": "Review: Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27273ad62867488ab1eb3ac343def5bd", "input": "Review: An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome. Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know? The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1614d8c7ebe241d1898fdc358185bdb7", "input": "Review: Take \"Rambo,\" mix in some \"Miami Vice,\" slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to \"Penthouse.\" Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see \"The Magnificent Seven\" (\"The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face\"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in \"Crime Story\" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo (\"Heat,\" \"Once Upon a Time in Mexico\") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, \"Bulletproof\" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae3c9baf24514b82ad030b7378e37caa", "input": "Review: I saw the movie with two grown children. Although it was not as clever as Shrek, I thought it was rather good. In a movie theatre surrounded by children who were on spring break, there was not a sound so I know the children all liked it. There parents also seemed engaged. The death and apparent death of characters brought about the appropriate gasps and comments. Hopefully people realize this movie was made for kids. As such, it was successful although I liked it too. Personally I liked the Scrat!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-889326e9607b4dd09552de1a0ae8a397", "input": "Review: Barbara Streisand directs and stars in this very Jewish story.To have a chance at obtaining an education, Babs enthusiastically disguises herself as a boy which isn't the most difficult thing to do since she already looks like a boy, anyway. At her new school she meets many male classmates who have no trouble at all in believing she's a guy.Don't miss the best of many moments of unintentional humor when Babs' male friend thinks she's a man, but pins 'him' to the ground, sits on top of 'him', and looks affectionately into 'his' eyes.... *snicker*.Mediocre film; splashy story about nothing particularly interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0e6170fce704e8ea3682c6830bc203b", "input": "Review: War Inc. is a funny but strange film. The actors are likable, the film is likable also, but I don't know how to describe the plot. I will go into the plot later on. This is a movie with some weird casting choices. Besides John Cusack as a hit-man, which we saw years ago in Grosse Point blank which I liked. Here we have Hilary Duff playing a Russian pop star named Yonica Babyya or something like that. Her character is odd. There is a scene where she sticks a scorpion down her pants. And hits on Hauser(Cusack). There is a twist in the end involving the two characters. It makes sense.That is the only casting choice I am going into. Cause it just plain strange. The whole movie is strange. But at times incredibly funny and I was never bored. Here we have some of the best actors out there. Excluding Miss Duff. She ain't great. But here we have John Cusack, Marisa Tomeii, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley. See what I mean?This is the story of a hit-man named Hauser(Cusack). He is sent down to some Middle Eastern city to put a hit on an oil man named Omar Sheriif(not the actor). While trying to deal with his own personal problems, he has to help out the wedding of a popstar(played by Hilary Duff). And he falls in love with a news reporter(played by Marisa Tomeii). There is a thing about the popstar though. Hauser is disgusted by her. There is a scene where she is singing a song to him and afterwards he throws up.The twist in the end of the film reveals kind of why. The thing about the twist is that I did kind of see it coming. But that doesn't matter. This is a strange, funny, and entertaining comedy. I love most of the actors. So really, how could I not recommend it?War,Inc.:3.5/5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbd93f127955440cb3082a80778c622b", "input": "Review: To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the ‘order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a ‘retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story. You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool – feelgood ending.As for Nicolas Cage, well… He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, ‘cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.7 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-afc4e32b62f6471899420931c6eb108c", "input": "Review: FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for this film to come out for almost a year, and finally saw it at the premiere in SB. I met a few of the actors, who were really nice and who were great in the movie. i watched the trailer so many times that i didn't know what to expect but got totally sucked in. the film was really beautiful to look at it and the music was good too. i recommend it to anyone who's a ryan donowho fan, and dominique swain was good in it too. the other actors were good also great. I hope it comes out on DVD soon!!!!!i first got into ryan from watching the OC and then saw him in a bunch of good indies like Imaginary Heroes. He is great in this film, and everything that he does that's indie. I also like Dominique but haven't seen her in as much. Hope to see them both in more soon!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb92298dd54f40a09fa6ac3e52d9f3d2", "input": "Review: I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies last night and was blown away by Victor McLaglen's performance:In every sense of the word a \"tour de force\". The atmosphere of 1922 Dublin evoked through the cinematography and production design really foreshadowed techniques used in the best film noirs of the 40's and early 50's.Very nice attention to detail also;during Frankie McPhillip's (Wallace Ford's) wake, the mourners are all praying in Gaelic. Max Steiner's score is unforgettable. As in later films such as 1939's GWTW, he appropriated folk ballads to lend local color and a sense of place and time. John Ford: already a film giant in 1935! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca596c9cdabe433b89244dcc235c24d0", "input": "Review: Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who \"accidentally\" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-972c4590fbea456c95a126fdfa7865b9", "input": "Review: One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title \"Honolulu 1944\" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e675d80c2c445a5b6396954c076f4aa", "input": "Review: Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-98d029ce7ce74259908eca571efb9eb3", "input": "Review: \"The Kennel Murder Case\" starts off at a run and doesn't stop until the very end. Everybody had reason to kill the victim, and several people tried. William Powell is terrific as Philo Vance, gentleman detective. Mary Astor is refreshing as the put-upon niece who only wants to marry her Scottish gentleman and enjoy her inheritance. This movie comes paired with \"Nancy Drew, Reporter\" on DVD, which is also fun. If you have to rent the disc (or check it out from your local library), do it. It's pure entertainment! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47ec827bff184522b9e37cda1588b9f6", "input": "Review: Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65fcee52590743aaa327f003df580db3", "input": "Review: There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a974630c30f94bd190d2490f3c64c1e3", "input": "Review: Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states \"starts off well then fizzles\" when it's really the reverse - \"starts off tepid then catches fire\". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic \"Kiss Me Deadly\") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying \"Pretty neat, huh?\" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, \"Don't go away\". She fires back \"Where would I go?\" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly \"Yeah, that's right\". The friction between them is a hoot.There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7625baeca714418ea3df91fbf5e967f1", "input": "Review: Though not seen in too many films prior, you have certainly seen the basic plot themes in too many films since. Not one of Grant's nor Loy's best films, they make an outstanding effort together. After all, with that much talent and very good supporting cast, you know the laughs will be there.The film is light, has some dramatic spotting but keeps the plot moving and gets you to smile the whole way through.A great example of classic American film fare that has stood the test of time.Definite Saturday afternoon fare, heavy on the popcorn. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e4f4c9cebcc4f9085804d5ac6062789", "input": "Review: I saw this movie today and I have to say, it was much much better than I expected it to be about couple of hours before going to see it. Personally I had some prejudice due to the language of it, but it did totally change my idea. The movie was in most cases surprisingly good with the great actor and actress performances. It was a story about a boy who had a dream and who did everything to reach it. This really touched me and as a film, which is based on a true story, it convinced me. A new school, psycho headmaster and a young boy who get known with a new teacher, a bit different one than the others and about fighting for the things even if they doesn't seem to work out. It showed how little things can make huge changes in many things, and how difference can sometimes cause difficult situations. Also I think the actor selections has succeeded perfectly. It really felt like you had been some person watching the episodes as an outsider when they happened. Before I spoil this movie with praises, I have to admit that there were some things and situations that didn't look and feel realistic..like the one where the headmaster of the school beat Frits aka. Martin in front of the class, at the end of the movie. He really got beaten badly, but the only thing that it caused to him, was some blood coming from the nose when comparing that to the first beating in the beginning, when Frits got some stitches..well I guess every movie has it own faults..have to say, that if I someday somewhere find this DVD from the store, it's sure thing, that I take it with me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f44a43f9505043f8b57e505267d84a07", "input": "Review: Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b201741d320f481bb08d47c165d3a90d", "input": "Review: Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.\"The Fear: Resurrection\" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): \"Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween\" (\"Fear 2: One Night of Halloween\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d089d2b04f84d1bbacc4adca08c70d0", "input": "Review: The sitcom \"The league of Gentlemen\" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village \"Royston Vasey\". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a \"local\" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about \"her\" sexual conversion.Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the \"real\" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: \"Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave.\"Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e854f5973234689b4c7c0fd0e57d8a5", "input": "Review: I saw \"The Grudge\" yesterday, and wow... I was really scared, a good thing. I love horror-movies, and I really liked this one. There were so many 'surprise'-scenes (what's the English word?) that made you jump in your seat. Though, too much screaming from the audience made it difficult not to laugh. I think the most scary scene was... on the bus, when the face flashes by on the window, or when Yoko's walking without her chin. The make-up is also VERY good. Sometimes you could really see it was there, but it was still adding a freaky look to the scene. The boy was very good indeed, so cute without make-up and so terribly scary with it on. The next time I hear a cracking noise I will probably feel pretty scared... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b80d0f765ac64cbf96f0ab3146872ce0", "input": "Review: For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness (\"I can see!\" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock. There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun. One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will. Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science. If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: \"I can see!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51ae3f26d6ce481f9a50d0f76ee60961", "input": "Review: Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9885433d4d194e8980371b2a1b869b57", "input": "Review: Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6784362ed9424052b41b8e77eb7aa32d", "input": "Review: don't watch this Serbian documentary and Serbian propaganda look out for this documentary and you will see facts and truth Death of Yugoslavia documentary series (of five episodes) is a painstakingly compiled and researched account of the extended mass-bloodshed which marked the end of the old Federal Yugoslavia and spanned almost the entire first half of the 1990's. It includes a huge wealth of news footage and interviews with involved parties both \"Yugoslav\" and otherwise. The only real \"improvement\" which could be made to this amazing achievement would be the inclusion of later developments in the Balkans since the program was made. This was indeed done in the late 1990's for a repeat showing on BBC television, but the addition of some even more recent events would help to complete this admirably detailed and fulsome piece of work. Perhaps another whole episode might be warranted? The very succinct title of this documentary was made all the more appropriate by the eventual abandonment of the term \"Yugoslavia\" by the now-named Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro - a much belated and formal admission of that which occurred years before.not fiction like in \"Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War (1999)\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ea5d47ca30b4bd2a4f0e74829166ecc", "input": "Review: This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8d2f8a625e6464db8f8ef6610a281ca", "input": "Review: Ah, Domino is actually a breath of fresh air, something new to the cinema world. I enjoyed the movie a lot because of the intricate plot, the varied characters, and the intense camera effects. I've seen some complain about the camera work and, in fact, according to the creators themselves, the flashy and wild shots were all the culmination of mistakes made through time. All of what you see was the desired effect. Perhaps some complain because something quite like this has never been done before, although that's what sets it apart. In a deeper aspect, what you are seeing is just how Domino sees things through her eyes, think about it.When it comes to the story, I don't see anything quite bad about it. Despite it's \"messy\" nature, according to some, it is in fact just a rapid form of storytelling. The plot really isn't all that hard to follow, if you actually focus on what's going on. Maybe it's just me because I see movies from many different aspects such as the acting, the plot, etc. I'm no \"interpreter\" or anything who picks movies apart, it just comes to me. With that said, I believe this is quite an excellent movie indeed, despite it's future as a cult-classic, blockbuster, or whatever.And the characters, well there's no doubting how varied the cast is. I believe the cast is excellent as they all do fine jobs portraying their characters effectively, that's what makes a movie ladies and gentlemen. The characters are all very unique and a plus is that you get to witness a small piece of each one of their lives, setting them apart even further. Basically, I personally loved the cast and characters.All those who bash and burn this film perhaps just don't see it as I do, or it just doesn't appeal to them. No matter, this is a great film in it's own right, no, it's a great film period. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-979e92ccd75a4a16af6ad73a4a5c280d", "input": "Review: Possible SPOILERS: Not SureWhile watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the \"Circle of Life\" or \"Can You Feel the Love Tonight\" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the \"I Just Can't Wait to be King\" sequence).The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the \"Who Wants to be King of the Jungle\" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-303908765d224aa9be0324ac825b72e3", "input": "Review: I am a lover of B movies, give me a genetically mutated bat and I am in heaven. These movies are good for making you stop thinking of everything else going on in your world. Even a stupid B movie will usually make me laugh and I will still consider it a good thing. Then there was Hammerhead, which was so awful I had to register with IMDb so I could warn others. First there was the science of creating the shark-man, which the movie barely touched on. In order to keep the viewers interested they just made sure there was blood every few minutes. During one attack scene the camera moved off of the attack but you saw what was apparently a bucket of blood being thrown by a stagehand to let you know that the attack was bloody and the person was probably dead (what fabulous special effects). Back to the science, I thought it was very interesting that the female test subjects were held naked and the testing equipment required that they be monitored through their breast tissue. Anyway this movie had poor plot development, terrible story, and I'm sorry to say pretty bad acting. Not even William Forsythe, Hunter Tylo or Jeffrey Combs could save this stinker. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5eac69d9c2645f48928c5a9cbf03419", "input": "Review: I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived \"twist\" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2befa86cb1e34f0893c2b0df1301719e", "input": "Review: This \"movie\" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be \"movie\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d32d09010434f7888aeec746500377f", "input": "Review: This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b6bcc223e044632aa815d76fdafa0c0", "input": "Review: John Waters most accessible film to date is one of his better ones, considering it cut down on all of the campiness and outright vulgarity which seem to litter most of his previous work. Sure, the nudity and the sexual references are still there, at least it is presented in a fashionthat cannot be deemed too foul or disgusting. Due to some great casting choices, this film really brought out the silliness associated with modern art and the subjective nature of your modern artist. Funny and somewhat lighthearted (if that is possible for Waters), this is one of those films I would watch on a rainy day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33369f7af4654086b9f9dd51ecc7de0f", "input": "Review: This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48f9b675d70a46d2bb1f56e496a4ec6d", "input": "Review: John Water's (\"Pink Flamingos\"...) \"Pecker\" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea38b46df04742be9b2cd9d668a2d130", "input": "Review: This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la \"War of the Worlds\"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a \"Basic Instinct 3\" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5025140a962c489eba525ff16f64c19d", "input": "Review: i liked this film a lot. it's dark, it's not a bullet-dodging, car-chasing numb your brain action movie. a lot of the characters backgrounds and motivations are kinda vague, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. it's nice to see a movie where the director allows the viewer to make up their own minds.in the end, motivated by love or vengeance, or a desire to repent - he does what he feels is \"right\". 'will god ever forgive us for what we've done?' - it's not a question mortal men can answer - so he does what he feels he has to do, what he's good at, what he's been trained to do.denzel washington is a great actor - i honestly can't think of one bad movie he's done - and he's got a great supporting cast. i would thoroughly recommend this movie to anyone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8f56c1395894ed8abc1ac65a479c5b9", "input": "Review: Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in \"The Making of The World at War\" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08b42e17668a480db964b1eb526f5ff6", "input": "Review: A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c840ebd68f2044589a483a94735af906", "input": "Review: This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned \"nemesis\", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e33fb808e67449b9f8ecc55fa6c1de2", "input": "Review: I first saw this mini-series a number of years ago on British television and was immediately captivated by the story. This rather surprised me as I am not a great fan of either 'Jane Eyre' or 'Wuthering Heights'; I consider the heroine of the former to be a self-righteous bore, and the latter piece of work as overblown claptrap.'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', like the aforementioned works, is also somewhat depressing in parts. However, the darker parts of the film were offset by the excitement of Helen's escape, the breathtakingly wild and beautiful landscape of Yorkshire, and the sexual magnetism of Toby Stephens.This film successfully portrays the frustratingly restrictive lifestyle of all women of the time. At best they suffered from a form of minor domestic tyranny as portrayed by the treatment of the womenfolk in the Markham household. At the other end of the scale, there is the unfortunate Helen who is married to a wealthy man of high estate, but is exposed to brutality and humiliation alternating with long periods of neglect. She runs away and experiences a brief moment of freedom but, as a women of mystery living alone in a rural community, she inevitably becomes the subject of spiteful gossip and speculation.Tara Fitzgerald is excellent as the long-suffering Helen Markham. Not only incredibly beautiful (in spite of that terribly unflattering hairstyle) with the most amazing cheekbones, she is also more than capable of playing the central role in the film. Tara is dignified and aloof while, at the same time, allowing us to see that Helen is still dangerously vulnerable. Rupert Graves IS the depraved, yet curiously attractive Arthur Huntingdon - after seeing him, I could never imagine another actor playing that part. Pam Ferris deserves special mention for her role as Gilbert's indulgent mother, as does the actress who played his sister Rose, and Simon Carter who is the uncharitable vicar with a taste for the Good Things in Life. Finally, I could watch this film for Toby Stephens alone; he is so good-looking,rugged, sexy, sensitive (but not in a nauseatingly sentimental way). I am not even sure if he is a good actor as my hormones prevent me from judging him objectively!If there is a fault with the film it is the use of flashbacks which I felt both interfered with the flow of the story and made it slightly confusing. Other people, who have watched this film with me, also had problems with this, and I found I had to explain to them that certain scenes were in fact retrospective.I am extremely grateful for the people responsible for making this film. Not only did I puchase the video (a rare occurrence), but it led me to buy Anne Bronte's superb novel. Naturally, this was better than the film, but only by a narrow margin. I recommend that anyone interested should watch the film and then read the book in that order. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d148217b40fe471fa073638672ec85d4", "input": "Review: Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.( Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7a2121fce6f4be5a1f233800c8f30db", "input": "Review: I was probably one of the few Australians not watching the tennis when this series aired. I have to say when William McInnes first appeared I though, that is one crappy actor! But as the series continued he toned down his performance and I totally loved him. He was such a rotten guy but he did make me laugh. I watched the show to see Hugo Speers (Heart and Bones, The Full Monty) and Tom Long (SeaChange, Two Hands). It was interesting to see Speers play a nice, quiet man and even more interesting to watch Tom Longs' rippling muscles! Sigh... Seriously, Long's performance was a total shock and really brilliant. He stole the show. Martin Sacks was good also in a small role, and the leading actress put in an entertaining performance. I'd recommend this programme if you enjoy stories with a twist and watching Tom Long walk around with no shirt on... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9794ec3b527f431a958b525b342e3a11", "input": "Review: After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. \"10 Items\" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned \"Lost In...\" seems to stretch out over a few long days.I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2afe1ce2e7ba4c08826bcaaa8e8b25c1", "input": "Review: This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3bc000f1d7f44268296fd8d9b21e560", "input": "Review: I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their \"Top 100 of all time\" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56b21bd93396465cac72e8361dde9529", "input": "Review: (48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow \"idealism\" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By \"them\" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its \"secret\" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated \"artists\" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.\"Guerrilla\" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as \"Malcolm X\" or \"Gandhi\", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the \"proleteriat\" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear \"edgy\", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those \"Che-wearers\" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel \"ideals\" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a69b60a8ffb40a3a516b5390cd5e487", "input": "Review: This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say \"daarling\" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said \"it\". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de2665aaefb548b4a01a0b020df81d04", "input": "Review: \"Father of the Pride \" was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in \"The Simple life \") I admit that are many similarities with this show and \"The Simpsons\" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like \"Mission Hill \" a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c39d1020a53c4d45b8ea9ad3282a844e", "input": "Review: Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, \"I'll just call you Jackass then\"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c896abdde441492d89eb76a0d8ab03a6", "input": "Review: 'Ned Kelly' is a wonderfully made Australian film honouring a true Australian hero. We are taken into the world of Ned, his best friend, Joe Byrne, and the other members of the Kelly Gang, as the film explains and perhaps justifies Ned's actions.There is an exceptional cast present, who all give stellar performances, which brings the film to life. (Great job, Heath!) Orlando Bloom was fantastic as Joe, playing the role of quiet, loyal ladiesman very well. I was swept up in the moment. For a moment I almost believed the Gang would win the battle at Glenrowan, alas, it was not to be.Some aspects of the film are fictional, and as an avid Ned Kelly fan (and supporter), was slightly disappointed by this. Perhaps also the film could've gone longer, to cover more of the Kelly Gang's/Ned's life - I felt not enough was covered.Regardless of a few flaws, this is a moving film, which stirs all sorts of emotions. (And hey, I'd assume this film would be better to watch rather than Mick Jagger trying to portray Ned...) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-961a0d7112564ff4907a6a15343c1318", "input": "Review: My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.DO NOT WATCH Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a9b0a55e66e4b6399cb1ac49c047e78", "input": "Review: To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2e3fe0ffe624cdab8e7adfceb25f976", "input": "Review: Normally when I go on a raid of the local Hollywood Video I head towards the B-Horror movies. To me the basic principals behind a B-Horror movie is it's camp value, Heavy Gore, Lots of needless Nudity, and special effects that anyone can put together with a pack of corn syrup and latex. I rented Cradle of Fear strictly because I've been a fan of the band since they released they're first Demo in 1995. The movie started off on an interesting note and then when I saw Dani Filth stomp on an extremely obvious latex mask I LAUGHED. When I saw the Lesbian sex scene for the sake of a Lesbian sex scene I LAUGHED EVEN HARDER. I spent pretty much the entire movie laughing and when I wasn't laughing I was shaking my head thinking about how a multi-million dollar rock star would want to make a movie that seemed like it was on a budget of multi-hundreds of dollars. The whole point of this movie to me seemed to attract the \"Hardcore Goth kids who think death, destruction, sex, blood, and Satan are the greatest things invented since Lava Lamps. That was really it. To me this movie seemed like 80.5% of the things that happened in this movie just happened for the sake of being Satanic. This movie had a lot of potential and really could have been a real good movie but in the end this \"Movie\" really is just an extended Cradle of Filth Video. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fae7e0d7aa374e22a28e8117173a3f52", "input": "Review: Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-397188895efd48a39bd7d81f3589df78", "input": "Review: The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. This is the job of television, not cinema. The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. \"Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do\" or whatever the line was. Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife \"I'm giving up smoking.\" An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-158e65f8cf2f44a595652f9ab79daea2", "input": "Review: \"Horrible People\" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e4567e7c2a14c3899104ac3363a45f8", "input": "Review: Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9eb0b56ae6dc40b1a24f541a853cf2bb", "input": "Review: I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-314f28745f074d8f8f0644b2f608a3cc", "input": "Review: I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, \"Burning Moon\". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, \"Premutos\" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially \"Braindead\". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in \"Bad Taste\", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-584b8cc5cf9149f499b78c01651953e9", "input": "Review: How can you resist watching a film with some swing? It's a delightful little film full of wonderful actors and a wonderful story line. Too bad they don't tour out here...I'd go see them. See it if for no other reason than to hear some good music. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3e823e2ba754e53ba13d779bcd493be", "input": "Review: For those of you who think anime is just about giant reptiles raping schoolgirls, think again. There is a totally different side to the Japanese animation. Yakitate! Japan is one of those shows. It is a sweet-natured tale of a young boy with the gift to make delicious bread. His universe is all about creating a Japanese bread that can match with the famous European breads. The show is as wacky as they come and I'm sure that non-Japanese viewers will miss a lot of the jokes. But it is still very nice to watch because of the complete innocent vibe of the show. In the world of Yakitate! it is not uncommon for people to look like they've just had an orgasm after eating bread. The bread is hallucinating and can give the consumer a wide array of super powers, from time-traveling to swimming like a fish. That weird aspect makes it into one of the least predictable and funny shows I've watched in a while. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f269c04f337492aa547b0665cc5314e", "input": "Review: This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series\"Heartbeat\" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e197a66dc73d433e807f1bf6b2faafeb", "input": "Review: While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.Plain and simple.Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_> Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-501cb626955144b59389b220a2e8a7a3", "input": "Review: I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecca2fb97a424d38b2569c0cdba9090c", "input": "Review: OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, \"Sound's great! Original!\" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0947a9b79a4b41f48366fea07fee370e", "input": "Review: Acclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5990c182e0064f489ee089fbf2429623", "input": "Review: Eddie Murphy Delirious is undoubtedly the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life. When I saw it for the first time about 2 years ago I was in stitches for weeks after it. To date I have seen it a further 17 times and i still laugh my ass off each time. For those who dont know Eddie Murphy was a brilliant stand up comedian before he was a Hollywood superstar. There is not one dull spot in this piece of genius unlike Eddie Murphy Raw which was released in 1987 which goes flat during the middle. If you are not the sort of person who can't stand swearing then I wouldn't advise you to see it as you will probably hear swearing of some form every 5-10 seconds. I gave this a 10 out of 10 because it displays the greatest comic genius of them all at his best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a38d219686747518525d87454d40ab0", "input": "Review: I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than \"Love's Abiding Joy.\" The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b29566d7d5de46f39f37f98771834a28", "input": "Review: The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b49ea9fad8c94fe4a9a39144b9e026f4", "input": "Review: Clint Tollinger arrives in a small town looking for his estranged wife and news of his daughter, tho he finds her, the chance of any sort of reconciliation is very slim. Whilst here, the sheriff and the important townsfolk learn of Tollinger's reputation as a pistol specialist town tamer. As they are living in fear of a mysterious landowner who is stripping the town from them bit by bit, they hold a meeting that chooses to hire Tollinger to rid the town of it's unsavoury elements.Man With The Gun seems to be either a forgotten piece or a vastly under seen one, at the time of me writing this, it has just over 200 votes and a paltry 9 user comments written for it. It's a shame on either score because although the production values scream out that this is a B movie Western, this is a fine entry in the Western genre. That the piece takes on a rather standard plot theme of an harangued town turning to an avenging dark angel, probably hasn't done the film any favours over the years, i myself read the synopsis and thought it's just another in the line of similarly themed pictures. Yet i was pleasantly surprised to find a darkly dramatic picture boasting many enjoyable moments, both technically and as a functioning story.Robert Mitchum is in the lead as Tollinger, perfectly cast, he strides thru the picture like some brooding menace. We often talk about the screen presence that John Wayne and Charlton Heston had {justifiably of course}, Mitchum is right up there with the best of them. One sequence here sees him standing in the shadows at the back of a room as a meeting takes place, we don't see his face, but we can feel that piercing brood staring out at us!. The rest of the cast are also very much in Mitchum's shadow, so really it's solely with the big man that the films acting credentials are high, perhaps it's unfair to single out Ted de Corsia for a kick, but Man With The Gun's minor failings are with its villains, and sadly de Corsia is lacking any sort of villainesque menace. The score from Alex North is excellently layered {fans of Spartacus will certainly be pricking their ears up} and the cinematography from Lee Garmes is highly impressive when one realises that the majority of this picture was shot on the studio lot. Directed and co-written by first time director Richard Wilson, Man With The Gun holds few surprises for the genre, but it's dark in tone, violent and above all else, highly watchable. 7.5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-004feb3a3a9541c889024ff52beaa15c", "input": "Review: A very cute movie with a great background provided by the city of Boston and Fenway Park. As a baseball fan and light movie addict, it hit a homerun for me. Plenty of laughs and plenty of authentic baseball scenes with real ballplayers and real references to past Bosox failures. And how enjoyable was it to watch a movie with a baseball theme without having to endure an overage, over-the-hill, self-serving Kevin Costner attempting to make believers out of a critical audience? Jimmy and Drew did a fine job as a young love-struck couple suffering from Jimmy's Bosox \"jones\". It was a bit whacky and out of left field, but there really are Sox fans that are that fanatic and live their lives through the fortunes of their beloved team. The movie coasted along at a fast pace and the ending, although predictable, had the charm and sentimentality of so many other popular movies, without being overly pretentious. Also enjoyable was the return of Willie Garson to the screen. I miss the forever-popular \"Stanford Blatch\" from Sex & the City. He's always funny, even when he does or says very little. So buy yourself two box seats, some popcorn, and get ready for a fun time. \"Fever Pitch\" is a winner. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a59a0ca8a9f941f493c1872f225bf72e", "input": "Review: John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no \"horror\" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of \"Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up.\" Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says \"I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you.\" HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. \"Why Can't We Be Friends\" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-150672c10ba04af88dc118a3999838e7", "input": "Review: When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found 'The Mind's Eye' again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b1db8ecd0a9497084a53e9bcf0c0535", "input": "Review: Mild SPOILERS contained herein. I'm spoiling this film to save you the trouble of having to watch it. Jet Li's movies fall into one of two categories: Shaolin period movies and movies set in modern-day Hong Kong revolving around Triads or Triad like organizations. Each genre has its best and worst films. `Twin Warriors' is Jet Li's best Shaolin era flick while `The Evil Cult' is his worst. `Fist of Legend' while in the recent past is the best `modern era' Jet Li movie. `Black Mask' without a doubt is the worst.Jet Li plays a self-exiled mercenary who received an injection that gives him superhuman ability, but shortens his life span. In his `new life' in exile he plays a pacifist librarian. When his old mercenary squad goes on a rampage, Jet Li becomes a vigilante determined to stop them. He dons a very silly corrugated cardboard mask so as to conceal his identity from the police (and public) as a librarian, as well as to conceal his true identity to his ex-comrades in arms.The version I saw was dubbed, and horribly at that. Why does Jet Li capture and hold hostage his library co-worker if he's a pacifist? Is there a love story between them? Why does the police chief not care when he learns of the Black Mask's true identity? The plot is just plain BAD. Bad by way of the superhero cheesiness, bad in the sense that characters are never properly developed, bad in its character interactions, all topped off by a half-explained story I quickly lost interest in. The action and martial arts sequences are way over the top. Lots of blood, gore (severed body parts aplenty), explosions, and Matrix style superhuman martial arts fiascos are present in the film. Unfortunately this is the films best and only selling point. If you want to see Jet Li playing a vigilante superhero in a Mission Impossible style movie `Black Mask' delivers. For the rest of us Jet Li fans it is a true disappointment. This is one of those movies where Jet Li never gets to be Jet Li: he gets neither the chance to charm us with his charisma, nor a chance to impress us with his impressive yet realistic martial arts ability. Normally a Chinese knockoff of Ozzy Osbourne would be enough to engross me in a film, sadly `Black Mask' proved to be an exception to that rule. Indeed the antagonist of this movie, by the way he dresses, his long straight hair, and trademark round sunglasses looks like the modern and aged Ozzy Osbourne. However the villain isn't on-screen long enough to make the gimmick worthwhile. I am assuming the likeness to Ozzy was intentional; in addition to the villain's look, he also ran a satanic looking hideout. So much more could have been made from the Ozzy Osbourne villain gimmick! If only the writer, director, or ANYONE had bothered to give a background to and develop the character of the film's arch villain!`Black Mask' was the first Jet Li film released on video in the USA after Lethal Weapon 4, and I'm glad I stayed away from it until now. It may well have ruined my whole perception of Jet Li as a martial artist and actor. If you want to see Jet Li at his worst, rent `Black Mask' and `The Evil Cult' and make it a double feature or horror, both intentional and unintentional. Otherwise stick to moves that utilize the talents of Jet Li, and have plots that are semi-well thought out and plausible. 3/9 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2981385a83a494082531c1bf4be9906", "input": "Review: Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-584b5fddf87d4caa9f7b7f658ca97e0d", "input": "Review: i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are \"fair targets\" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30f54822f28b4904a3a50f986a0e17ee", "input": "Review: With the amount of actors they have working on the project they have a wide variety of cast. Nice starship CGI in places BUT their green screen needs some work. Anyone heard of Adobe After Effects 7, they should buy it get their keying better.Stories are well thought out, plenty of trek elements in this to keep it in the right context. BUT BUT the idea of two guys kissing makes me wind forward the episode. Im not homophobic but i cant help that i don't find men kissing entertaining (dont mind women). Anyway... For a fan series this is good stuff. With minor improvement in their green screen, brush up acting and some guidance ratings this series is stunning. Anyway i recommend this series to who ever enjoyed TNG and DS9. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6002313295741c9b519480062659015", "input": "Review: Five Deadly Venoms is not as bloody and violent as Story Of Ricky or Super Ninjas, but it features some of the best hand-to-hand fight sequences in Hong Kong film history. Director Chang Cheh creates what is considered by many to be his masterpiece. This movie launched the careers of the five men who play the venoms. Meng Lo plays yet another bad ass. He would go on to be in Super Ninjas. Kuo Chui who is Philip Kwok would go on to Story Of Ricky and Hard Boiled. Any chop socky fan can apperciate this. But I still think it ain't as good as Super Ninjas (also made by Chang Cheh). But all chop socky is good and this is one of the very best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f58af8726fcf4fb1b76f2df50b1f4480", "input": "Review: This was my favourite film as a child, and I have been in the stage production a few times so it will always remain my favourite muscical and I doubt anybody could ever re-make the story of Oliver Twist on screen, any better than this one did.My all-time favourite ''bad guy'' has to be Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Not only did he scare the life out of my when I watched it as a 6 year old, but now as a woman I can empathize more with Nancys character, the bar maid/prostitute who helps Oliver get the life he deserves.Jack Wilde as the artful dodger, was fantastic, and I don't think anybody could ever out-do him, as the street-pocket picker, and best friend of Fagin. The music is fantastic, especially Fagin's numbers, I'm also quite thankful they didn't give Bill Sikes a musical number, it wouldn't of worked with him being such a sinister character.I think Carol Reed did an excellent job of Nancy's sticky ending, keeping it a G rated movie by disguising her beating, but giving enough away to show the violence of Bill towards her. This movie is both charming, and charismatic as a musical sing-along, as well as being a moving drama that follows a young boy as he tries to find where he belongs in life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7260cb2c7bb4bbdb7124f7e1b762337", "input": "Review: Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.Overall 7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-abbb32bc40e844b085c1ccbb1412e489", "input": "Review: What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a66f0d9cbd4045c1acc39697cba63609", "input": "Review: It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6363337b8534d9ca8389759784772e8", "input": "Review: The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32f01db4afc04eec94139d0a3199064d", "input": "Review: I remember seeing this movie when I was about 7; and at the time it shocked me. I had seen a violent movie before, but I never saw a movie with the consequences and reality of violence. This movie not only shows this, but it also shows how people can change their lives and choose happiness. What this movie did and crash failed to do was to be truthful. Crash tried to show how racism was bad (and Crash actually had a built-in anti Asian bias) and to come at it from a morally superior position. Grand Canyon came at things from such a raw and real perspective that it actually ends up on a higher ground than crash. Especially when you compare the endings. The ending of crash is this supposedly neat little ending that ties everything up. While Grand Canyon simply ends on a quiet note, where you know nothing much will change in the character's lives but that's because life just goes on too, there's no suitable ending. No matter how good...bad you are. There is no ending of a chapter to begin another. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe0d91d4bd4245a582a86d3da9b9a9a6", "input": "Review: Hello. This movie is.......well.......okay. Just kidding! ITS AWESOME! It's NOT a Block Buster smash hit. It's not meant to be. But its a big hit in my world. And my sisters. We are rockin' Rollers. GO RAMONES!!!! This is a great movie.............. For ME! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cb9b2f338634c2ea3895955d896ead6", "input": "Review: Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film \"Hitokiri\" (manslayer; aka \"Tenchu\" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in \"western\" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name \"Hitokiri,\" a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the \"Loyalist\" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. \"Brilliant History Lesson\" indeed!No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of \"leveling\" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's \"Black Ships,\" the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from \"selling out the country.\" (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with \"Goyokin,\" which Gosha made in the same year. But, where \"Goyokin\" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, \"Hitokiri\" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a \"Bonanza\" episode.Barry Freed Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f8af690731e4f6885a279b64cafc4c3", "input": "Review: Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with \"I blame myself as much as you\". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-591dc83dc9d84a54b13b9eda44c2e445", "input": "Review: Like many Americans, I was first introduced to the works of Hayao Miyazaki when I saw \"Spirited Away.\" I fell in love with the film and have seen it many times. Now I am on a search to see every film by Miyazaki. One of his earlier works is \"Castle in the Sky.\" Although it's still enjoyable, it's not as good as \"Spirited Away\" (though comparing this or any film to his 2002 masterpiece is perhaps unfair).A young boy named Pazu (James Van Der Beek) is working in a mine late one night, when he sees a girl fall slowly from the sky. When she wakes up the next morning, she introduces herself as Sheeta (Anna Paquin). But Sheeta has a secret, and before he knows it, Pazu is pulled into an adventure that will lead him into danger with pirates, the army and a lost floating city.Going into a film by Hayao Miyazaki means you can expect one thing: a sense of wonder and magic. Many filmmakers have tried, but no one can create a sense of magic and awe like Miyazaki. Watching a film by Miyazaki is like experiencing a fantastic dream from your childhood.Because the film is animated, dubbing the film does not pose much of a problem because it is next to impossible to determine whether or not the lip movements match up to the words. It also helps that the translated dialogue is well-written and voiced by talented actors. The voice acting is varied. James Van Der Beek fares best. He brings an irresistible enthusiasm and excitement to the role of Pazu that is perfect for the character. Anna Paquin is nearly as good as Sheeta. She's frightened by the events going on around her, but she knows what she has to do. Mark Hamill is unrecognizable as the evil Muska. He's dangerous and wants something from Sheeta, and will do anything to get it. The other voices are bad. Cloris Leachman is awful as Dola. Leachman may have won an Oscar for \"The Last Picture Show,\" but she's annoying as the pirate leader. Leachman gives the character an obnoxious squawk that's nearly always monotonous. It's so bad it nearly ruins the film! Jim Cummings is an effective voice-over actor, but he's miscast as the general.I would definitely recommend seeing \"Castle in the Sky.\" I'll probably end up buying it myself. But even though it's not as good as \"Spirited Away,\" it's still pretty good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f362eab02808487291b9bc608c096fbf", "input": "Review: I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The \"suspense\" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7adf5ba61f4f47b68fc14ad6d3782b51", "input": "Review: Relentlessly stupid, no-budget \"war picture\" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable \"script\", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept \"action\" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c6e2eb903e548089e496690c942a0d6", "input": "Review: Adorable! I saw Domestic Import in Philly in October with my kids. We all liked it so much that we saw it a second time with my parents. I haven't heard them laugh like that in years! It was the first time that I can remember seeing a movie that my parents and my kids could enjoy. It's really cute and we can't wait for it to come out on DVD. They need to make more movies like Domestic Import. It is refreshing to go to a movie that three different generations can enjoy (and not be embarrassed). I have not seen a movie this cute since My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I loved Mindy Sterling as the mother. She was also in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is in this too and he is hilarious. I remember him from WKRP. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae8b701db89244a1bc83bcf2496846f4", "input": "Review: At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love \"Pushing Daisies\" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on \"Pushing Daisies\" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen \"P.D.\", I highly recommend watching it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5754e43b54b4e468d8ecc4865aa5987", "input": "Review: As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: \"What WAS it?\" \"A nightmare...from the past!\"Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1028742540894f4b92c0cf2403a97dff", "input": "Review: A sad, sad sight indeed is The Munster's Revenge. The Munsters are brought back one last time(Fred Gywnne received a huge paycheck to come back to the role of Herman Munster)in this made-for-TV movie about a pair of wax replicas of Grandpa and Herman that are robots \"terrorizing\" the city as preparation for a robbery of a mummy's stash at an exhibit. With the police on their heels, the two elderly television icons try to find out who is actually behind the crimes in order to clear their names. We get to see them dress in drag as waitresses(a minor highpoint in the film), grandpa turns into a bat with attached wire a couple times(one time even flying to Transylvania with Herman somehow invoking his frequent flyer miles I guess), and a most annoying relative \"the Phantom\" constantly sings and breaks glass ad nausium! What is most sad is hard to pinpoint: is it that Gywnne(especially) and Al Lewis look so haggard in every scene and so indifferent to the material. Is it the hokey costumes of the robots that have that school production values look about them. Maybe it is the ridiculous script. Sid Caesar's crazy, mostly unfunny antics. Or perhaps it is seeing something which brought me joy and fond memories as a child being treated to a super K-Mart fashion makeover. At any even, the result is decidedly disappointing and silly even for Munster standards. As for the rest of the cast, Yvonne De Carlo is adequate in a most vacuous role(though showing more cleavage than usual for a woman of her years and experience). K. C. Martell makes an ever-so-not affable Eddie Munster. Jo McDonell is an attractive Marilyn. Bob Hastings as the aforementioned Phantom looks and acts and speaks in the most absurd manner. The film has a real cheap feel about it even for a made-for-TV movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-90283e873c8d42389ca040c7560bf452", "input": "Review: Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46e2cfc98e194d4b8b3d481becc9b6d1", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this movie. The acting by the adult actors was great, although I did find the main kid a little stiff. But he carried himself very well for being a new talent. The humor is very sublime and not in your face like most Hollywood comedy junk. I.e. The Nutty Professor. If you have a short attention span and are used to the typical Hollywood stuff you probably wouldn't like this as it is a bit slower paced. I picked it up on Blu-ray and I have to say the image quality is top notch. Probably one of the better looking Blu-rays I've seen so far. The extras were cool too. They deleted quite a bit, but that's probably a good thing as most of the deleted scenes didn't really add anything. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48988835da62461ab64fce1e04a4d606", "input": "Review: This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from \"A clockwork orange\") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See \"A clockwork orange\" or \"Le pianiste\" instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9410fc01cc294e6b923cfb69d4b8725d", "input": "Review: What a snore-fest.Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d5faf783f9f4af2b83b7311e933d5d5", "input": "Review: How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people \"screamed\" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9fd58aae610476d9219bc66559014f3", "input": "Review: If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.SPOILERS-- Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who \"supposedly\" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body! The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly! Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fbd3d9bb3c24701ab7ca197df17d0c9", "input": "Review: King's Solomon's Mines brings us Patrick Swayze (playing Allan Quatermain)who has spent a lot of time in Africa, but decides it is time to return to England and be a father to his son. He finds that his wife's parents have taken custody of his son and that he has very little chance of getting custody of him with lots of money for a law suit. In comes Alison Deedy (playing Elizabeth) whose father is in Africa and being held by an African tribe for ransom of the map Elizabeth's father had sent her. Elizabeth seeks out Quatermain to take her back to Africa to find her father.There is a good cast of supporting characters that go along with Quatermain and Elizabeth and of course there are some enemies (Russians) who want the map also.The movie holds your attention until the end. Patrick once again plays a ruggedly handsome honorable man who comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Patrick is a great dramatic actor who can easily portray passion, loss and despair, the rugged silent good man, anger and strength; In King Solomon's Minds his character actually smiles a few times. I would really like to see Patrick Swayze in a relaxed live-loving story again, one in which he doesn't have to clench his jaws and be quite so strong. Maybe a little dancing would help. But this is a good movie for the entire family and worth the time to watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4c37811f7bb4ee8904b130f1d5978ca", "input": "Review: Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44e00c56c29e4aa09b90a77c3de24c06", "input": "Review: This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The \"sisters\" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08c918cd067c4d638791be675cd78c49", "input": "Review: (There isn't much in the way of spoilers, since there isn't a plot to reveal, but still, I guess I describe some of what happens so...) This is it. This is THE most nonsensical film I've ever seen. There are simply no words to describe this movie, although \"bizarre\" \"ridiculous\" and \"ego trip\" are pretty close. the opening half hour or so are really, really weird music videos, with absolutely no plot or continuity, apart from that MJ falls into some from the previous. One of the highlights of this part of the \"film\" in the section where MJ is flying a merry-go-round aeroplane through what seem to be half-arsed bond intro rejects and sections cut from Yellow Submarine (dear lord you could not make this up).Then, with a little over an hour remaining, the \"film\" begins, with a lot of claymation (some of it really creepy) spotting our \"hero\" and chasing him looking for an autograph. Obviously, this leaves our as of yet mute (discounting songs) lead somewhat worried, and he manages to temporarily lose them. Fortunate for him, because it means he can witness a falling star and, and again, I'm not making this up, turn into a claymation rabbit. He uses this cunning disguise to try and sneak past them, but, for reasons I can't recall right now, they see through it (oh no!) and the creepy chase begins again. Cue another song (big shock there).Shortly after the end of the chase, MJ somehow brings the rabbit to life, until he is busted by a policeman (in the middle of the desert) because it is, apparently, illegal to dance there.The rest of the film is equally as strange, highlights including MJ cleaning up a bar to the tune of Smooth Criminal, including shooting a man with his finger, not only killing the guy, but burning his shadow into the wall, a la nuclear fission weapons. Another good moment is when MJ, seeing, Mr Big (Joe \"what the hell happened to his career at this point?\" Peschi) kidnap one of the children he was friends with, magically creates a tommy gun, and in another moment of violence that pepper this film seemingly at random, opens fire at everything that moves. A final moment I shall mention is when MJ, surrounded by Mr Big and his private army. Seriously, this guy has dozens of people working for him, and they're decked out more like commando units rather than mobsters, which I guess they are. How does he get out? Why, he turns into a robot, complete with weapons and shield. This is the third of four transformations he makes, almost always when backed into a corner and/or on the run.This film is quite, quite surreal, with little in the way of plot, and virtually no continuity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c094012129774c35959b64be665fe5d1", "input": "Review: Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8376b545f6f4dd5a0da20827e75d2a5", "input": "Review: Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the \"mission\" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a \"story\" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the \"story\".Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. After some \"story\", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff45c202c7764a4088f525349a8fa447", "input": "Review: Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9de5f8d093994bfaa7968c3d2b78361f", "input": "Review: I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eba5d91f19d46c5a15b77c3a73d40f8", "input": "Review: I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c37f5d6f8d6c4c899a71d814ba153b53", "input": "Review: Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a17dee3a2424217888853dfb70358ca", "input": "Review: This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-773285fe5b6e46008a35141c06600baf", "input": "Review: Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. \"L'Intrus\" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as \"Trouble Every Day\" or \"J'ai pas sommeil.\"Now, ever since I saw \"Chocolat,\" I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. \"L'Intrus\" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from \"Trouble Every Day\" and \"J'ai pas sommeil,\" Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in \"Beau Travail\"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked \"Friday Evening\" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of \"L'Intrus.\" Otherwise, steer clear. I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In \"Chocolat\" the silence is sublime; in \"L'Intrus,\" it's just dull. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aed80ce29864407b93a8dd4ba887ed20", "input": "Review: Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f1c59eea59b4a1094742456b8c6ced9", "input": "Review: \"True\" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, \"here watch this\", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fa54e2cd2024ec8b9be86fbda9e05f7", "input": "Review: Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not, so beware:Just a small but crucial thing to watch for, an intriguing possibility: the boys steal a green Citroen at one point, for a joy ride, and return it to the owner having done purposeful and vengeful hidden damage to the car, hoping that the owner will crash. Is it the very same car they steal much later from the picnicking family? We know the original owner sold it. They drive off at the end on a dangerous road, one which I understand has been closed to all but pedestrians for the last ten years. A whole new slant to the end of the film.On another matter, this film could have been called \"Scent of a Woman\". I don't recall another film, certainly not American, that treats the scent of a woman in such a frank and open manner, much like the \"nose\" of a fine Bordeaux. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b6f7fbcf501417fae57383860f79a10", "input": "Review: This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying \"when is someone going to think of the children!\". While watching this movie, I kept thinking \"where'd you hear that?\" or \"that can't possibly be true\" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest \"anthem\" ever, \"Stand and Fight\", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, \"Dance With Me\" and \"Still the One\".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number \"We Almost Lost Detroit\" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch \"Rust Never Sleeps\" or \"The Last Waltz\" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a7cd8c28bbd4feb88816f2e680b1c20", "input": "Review: Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' \"un maximum d'\"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2470c955de964c699a517b5cca54e62e", "input": "Review: My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fa6c5a70d44460995e574d11f6af865", "input": "Review: Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The \"alligator\" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21869fa5cfc24f6486077c8a20958596", "input": "Review: Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-260200bef55e48379a5cc53e507da42f", "input": "Review: I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6010eabdc224411c9fedad755713b1b3", "input": "Review: I have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song \"My Boyfriend's Back.\" If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48aaf9af3b0d4c3da77e954d76a37167", "input": "Review: Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14AFear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.Runtime:88min 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e92728554bc491b932c70bda4c9b07e", "input": "Review: This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of \"Deadwood\" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a39dee274334609a0b914fce7820a2a", "input": "Review: Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly \"tutti-fruttis.\" Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico \"Ratso\" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery \"Everybody's Talking'\"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f277211b67d454196ccb8c5cd81dabc", "input": "Review: The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of \"Use the Force Luke\" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go \"TinTin, I am your Uncle\" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-998b6ab270f9440bac62ddb1a2e3cf18", "input": "Review: Some people loved \"The Aristocrats\" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the \"f\" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f26cb98373143ad8549a369cc2c8694", "input": "Review: If you are going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73d5dd87690a4af787ad336cd090c58a", "input": "Review: This is certainly one of my all time fav episodes of Trek. There is just so much going on in this one film that its crazy cool. First the guys beam down to an alien planet thats about to explode. They meet a freaky librarian type dude (very well played). Then Kirk manages to get himself transported back to what is very much like 16th century earth. McCoy and Spock try to follow but instead nearly freeze to death on the frozen version of the alien world 100,000 years in the past. Kirk manages to get himself locked up and charged with witchcraft while Spock enjoys some amok time with a sexy cavegirl who was vanquished to the this frozen, awful world by some bad guy.Spock decides hes happy where hes at and gives McCoy a royal assestment whuppin' when the doc suggests they need to look for a way out. Anyhow,they all finally escape, leaving the poor cavegirl behind. It takes a ton of convincing before Spock finally gives in and leaves. You can literally taste the sadness at the end. Leaving the cavegirl all alone in her frozen wasteland just seems cruel and is really touching. Spock must have been out of his vulkin' mind to leave behind his greatest hope for love and being human. Albeit, in a not so nice neighborhood!Anyway, you just get so much bang for your buck with this episode....A love story, the Salem witch trials, Spock as a human, the desperation of being left in total isolation...abandoned, and three entirely different settings on the alien planet. Its amazing they managed to jam all this into one fifty minute film. This one is a classic, don't miss it....I want it on DVD fer shure vulcans!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ece04a196d3c4c95aa3b367e2620502e", "input": "Review: There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c61a656581f4f69a6f0f808c7907b75", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that I've seen so many times that I can quote most of it. Some of the lines in this movie are just unbeatable. I particularly enjoy watching him stumble and fall while drunk, go out to the fancy restaurant drunk and the part with the moose.I don't know how many times I have seen this sequence but it's funny every time. From the moment Arthur gets to Susan's Dad's place to the bit with the moose, you pretty much laugh the whole time. I remember watching the out-takes regarding the bit with the moose. It went down just like I'd imagined it'd be like. They were all laughing so hard it was difficult for them to film it.The late Sir John Gielgud was a wonderful addition to this. His demeanor, his one-liners and the way he handled Arthur were all equally hilarious. It's always a funny moment when he whacks him over the head with his hat or tells him he's a spoiled little ____. I laugh every time I listen to the \"I'm going to have a bath\" and the lines that follow. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8a570a493f640399f9be0d3ef13be03", "input": "Review: This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.(Spoiler warning!)I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to \"play the best case for their character they could\". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e5cbeac5c39493d9cf854aea404a8a0", "input": "Review: Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7393a41ef0354deb932ea5a9e6664280", "input": "Review: This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeb45d740a3540c28465bb4e35ed9f9a", "input": "Review: Karen(Bobbie Phillips)mentions, after one of her kids gets out of hand with his lame annoying jokes, that she'll never survive this trip..boy, is she ever on the money. Karen is a school teacher taking her group of kids from the Shepley College of Historical Studies to the butt ugly locale of a run-down manor in the major dung-heap of Ireland..surely there are places in this country more appeasing to the senses than this?! The caretaker of the manor, Gary(Simon Peacock)warns Karen and her students to stay on the path and not to stray into the forest. There's a myth regarding the Sawney Bean Clan, a ritualistic druid cannibalistic inbred family celebrate Samhain(the end of Summer, October 31st)\"Feast of the Dead\" where sacrifices are needed to appease the spirits. Gary is supposedly clairvoyant, his cousin Pandora(Ginger Lynn Allen)tells us, because he was born on Samhain. Funny, because he sure doesn't see outcomes well or even give advice accurately. Nearly everyone dies(..even those who never stray from the path)and he doesn't even see his own gruesome fate. What this monster we hear breathing is a victim of way too much inbreeding..it's face resembles a malformed mushroom and it looks like a hideous reject from a Mad Max picture. It doesn't take long before the \"evil breeder\" is killing everyone. Paul(Howard Rosenstein)is Karen's love interest who made the wrong decision coming to Ireland without his girlfriend's prior knowledge.Horrible formula slasher doesn't stray from the norm. It's minuscule budget shows loudly and the characters are assembly line clichés churned out yet again to be slaughtered in the usual gory ways. Most of the violence flashes across the screen quickly with not much dwelling on the breeder's acts of death towards his victims. Lots of guts get pulled out during the fast edit cuts as one scene whisks to another. Seeing Gillian Leigh's gorgeous naked body for a moment or two isn't incentive enough to recommend it. Phil Price has the really irritating trickster character, Steve, often shedding bad jokes..how he is able to get Leigh's Barbara naked in the shower for some action is anyone's guess because I have no reason why he'd stand a chance with such a hottie. Brandi-Ann Milbrant has the fortunate role of Shae, the quiet virgin smart girl(who is also quite hot)who we know will be the one chosen by the screenplay to survive. Jenna Jameson drops by long enough to get her heart cut out of her chest(at least we see her breasts momentarily before her chest is opened up)with a few minor lines about two missing friends she's looking for. The film's main problem is that the story and character development grinds to a halt because it's realized that none of them are at all interesting so director Christian Viel just lets loose his monster to run rampant causing carnage, obliterating an entire cast almost in one fail swoop within ten minutes. Oh, and Richard Grieco has a minor opening cameo as a victim who strayed off the path to tent camp with his chick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ee058a3cac54db19f85a5793bf98dab", "input": "Review: This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as \"Mitchell in Malta.\" At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41179ac9a13d48d6aa4e2cff67bbe2de", "input": "Review: It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4858675726ff405a9b755f16e5fea1a9", "input": "Review: Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la \"Star Trek\" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired \"fright factor\" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it. One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8ba41f51a194961b4cea103d91047a1", "input": "Review: Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-814289994e0e4f6f8006ba5b4fa0a379", "input": "Review: For what it is, \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of \"street\" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb2e8cd54fe446bdb3383ab890d1ae53", "input": "Review: The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a \"thriller\" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1dd155dbec704032a473f2da6c21d2fd", "input": "Review: This movie was very good because it remember when I was young when I maked snow castle. It was so fun. This movie is interessant. This is a good quebeker movie with no much money and is also a magical movie because their wonderfull castle is very big and beautiful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac9cf37ad36547a7965bdbb414daffdb", "input": "Review: In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-249aad735f6749f4a5e58a680a27cc0a", "input": "Review: I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse. Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-df008b8a63a44344b03b55c48777cdd3", "input": "Review: \"Giant\" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see \"Hud\" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or \"The Last Picture Show.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1792395ce45c4d38864b0a1938fd543a", "input": "Review: Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on \"something that has had a great effect\". \"La Maman et La Putain\" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: \"Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry.\" And by that I don't mean \"sick and angry\" about \"the human condition\" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - \"an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty\" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like \"un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray\", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his \"anxiety\" and his \"despair\". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if \"La Maman et La Putain\" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being \"unflinching\" (though why one should even feel like \"flinching\" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch \"La Maman et La Putain\" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43e775b2d80c4e6d992e7db64c2b1ba2", "input": "Review: I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? 1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! 2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in \"Rambo II\" look mundane!! 3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ebff1b6bec94351a04f0fa9abcf23c3", "input": "Review: The above seemed a much more appropriate title when me and my suicidal underlings decided to watch this masterpiece of modern bullshit Erotic,Scary, Suspenseful, Well thought out, these are all the things this film fails to be.It is however incredibly funny, the slow sound effects and bad dubbing add to this to make one of the greatest comedies I have seen in recent years. And yet this film doesn't even try to be funny and that is one of the movies grand achievements, it becomes a comedy without even attempting to amuse.Throughout the film an old guy who looks amazingly like Santa Claus goes around ploughing over zombies and smashing vampires into the ground. This made me fail to believe the films title, if this was vampires vs zombies why were the vampires and zombies not fighting? Oh well whatever, besides there were more flaws to this rental than the title. Such as this one; there has been a virus sweeping through America creating zombie like beings who go around acting a lot like your average tourist. And yet there's only four zombies in the entire film. Another problem is besides one shop everywhere is deserted. Surely you'd see zombies roaming about in the woods or in the background a bit. In fact I believe they just drove around in a circle of forest over and over again since they didn't have a high enough budget to film in a wider location, that or the director didn't want to waste his precious time filming in different areas of wood he was to busy sitting in a trailer jerking off to be bothered with such trivial matters.In fact the director had so much fun doing this that he didn't have enough time to hire a big enough cast or even an editor. And so he told the eight members of the cast to dress up as different people and try not to act inconspicuous, whilst I assume he changed his name and began randomly snipping at the film reels \"editing isn't a hard job anyway right?\" The only reason this \"movie\" found it's way into our bag was because somehow we got it confused with Freddy vs Jason, strange how these things happen isn't it. And the only way we made it though the night was by strapping gas masks on and bolting them to our skulls to avoid the stink of this nauseating mess.Oh yes we did laugh at the end, but I'm sure one does that a lot when he has lost his sanity................... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-874b12927b2f466a97d549468eee0e1a", "input": "Review: Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ef20bddc1cc4426924680ef948297c0", "input": "Review: Hail Bollywood and men Directors !Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - \"Sure artificial insemination\" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - \"Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38cdcf53807e407bb0f0552797f1f738", "input": "Review: this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.banned... what a joke... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7504e5f6ebe148ef9acf0a4ab4088536", "input": "Review: Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, \"Jingle All the Way\" looked better than \"The Godfather\". \"Santa Claus\" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1437055c1e694129950c11dc22475c29", "input": "Review: I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom (\"You're not drinkin' again area ya's?\"), but he's a \"filmmaker\" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky \"inadvertently\" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or \"Mac the Knife\" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a \"poet.\"Spare me. \"I'm an artist,\" \"I'm a filmmaker.\" Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a \"creative\" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01c6af65785f49fca70a519e65e73bc6", "input": "Review: I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffd4964feb20468095060a497bc4a574", "input": "Review: As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame \"finale\" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d71f4d2382f4e3a9a5a364977aac386", "input": "Review: I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59b38256375d452e8fc6733f24c4ab31", "input": "Review: The \"Men in White\" movie is definitely one of the funniest, if not THE funniest, comedy movies I ever watched! (and I watched quite a lot!) It is about two garbagemen, who become \"Men in White\" and then stop an invasion from space. It is also a parody of lots of classic movies, such as \"Men in Black\", \"Star Wars\" or \"Dr. Strangelove\". Anyone who says that this movie is crappy has something wrong with his head. There are tons of funny gags and jokes here, and you might actually get injury to your mouth from laughing too hard (it happened to me!). If you can watch this movie on TV, watch it now - you certainly won't regret it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c24f059d46d49478cf78e146437256b", "input": "Review: Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's \"The Town the Dreaded Sundown\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9198362c6b8a401688ad61246bc084a8", "input": "Review: This is not \"so bad that it is good,\" it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d086586a53814fff810bd17322f59f60", "input": "Review: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict persists and while the world may be aware of the violence surrounding the division of the two countries, few have a clue to the other aspect of the division - the group of people who want peace and work toward eradicating the separation. Eytan Fox, in THE BUBBLE ('Ha-Buah'), has created a much needed alternative viewpoint of the schism, electing to tell a story that contains some fine humor, a lot of love, and a taste of brutal reality. It is a window into a situation that begs for understanding.In Tel Aviv three close friends are roommates: Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), a beautiful young woman with strong opinions; Yali (Alon Friedman), a very 'out' gay young man who works in a popular café; and Noam (Ohad Knoller), a handsome, somewhat shy fellow who, in addition to his day job in a music shop, is a member of the National Guard and therefore spends his free time serving as a guard at the city's checkpoints. It is during one of these guard duty weekends that he meets a young Palestinian named Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), and a mutual attraction occurs. The three friends decide to 'stowaway' the illegally present Ashraf (whom they nickname with an Israeli name) and while Ashraf and Noam settle into a love relationship, Yali hires Ashraf at his café, and Yali and Lulu both proceed to find love interests, too. All goes well until Ashraf must return home for his sister's wedding. Though in Tel Aviv Ashraf has been able to be openly gay with Noam, life is far different in Jerusalem: Ashraf is told he must marry his sister's groom-to-be sister. In an attempt to rescue Ashraf from his fate, Noam and Lulu disguise themselves as French reporters to gain access to Ashraf. In a moment of supposed seclusion, Noam and Ashraf are discovered kissing by the groom-to-be, and this act gives cause for blackmail in order for Ashraf to remain 'in the closet'.While the young people in Tel Aviv are dancing at an event to raise attention for peaceful coexistence, an attack occurs in Jerusalem - one that has grave consequences not only immediately, but also in the revenge mission Ashraf must now assume. The ending is tragic on many levels and it underlines just how serious the problem between these two countries is.The acting is so very natural that from both the comedic and the tragic aspects the audience completely believes in these beautiful young people. The story finds the right balance between the serious and the lighthearted and it is this balance than makes Eytan Fox such a fine writer/director. More people should watch this important and very fine film. In Hebrew, Arabic, and English with subtitles. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dda8f639c42346b69b071895051d21ad", "input": "Review: Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d604b8e169104d2f9f4298cb94407266", "input": "Review: Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it. Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality. Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods. But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more! Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals. Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-62a6d755a8374530899c8b615d1c5e52", "input": "Review: Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a \"stunt double\". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aeb3b500872c4c30b80941a163c08eff", "input": "Review: Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book \"Evil Angels\" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eefa6ce5935f4afb9fdad8541dd720d1", "input": "Review: \"Three Daring Daughters\" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the \"its just a movie\" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d3e8de2efd2943949c3dbdb1ed012223", "input": "Review: Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining! I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d13958f688a6483aa19c96b49f7f9dd4", "input": "Review: This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87b18e4259184d168a80e925fa5ac588", "input": "Review: Very funny to watch \"Beretta's Island\" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb56a219d7774f8b9f9eda5a688ac811", "input": "Review: Its too bad a lot of people didn't understand this and the next episode.But don't worry! ill explain it too you :)This episode is split in 2 parts.first part is Tony's \"Dream\" in his coma. Second part is what happens in real life.now what people didn't understand is that Tony's dream is more then just a dream. in this episode its about his preparation for his Death. He loses his own identity and eventually even forgets himself, thus he disconnects all his bindings with this world. You will notice what I'm saying at the doctor scene, where tony says he has lost his briefcase which contains \"his life\". They makers really did a superb job of interpreting they're own thoughts of what happens when you die. If you understand the whole plot you will find this and the next episode an unique thing, with great spiritual meanings.Like every sopranos episode the acting and filming is superb. Only thing i didn't understand was what the role where of the monks. gonna re watch it till i get this.anyways this episode really touched me, and i don't think anyone else can make a better view of what happens in a almost death experience.10/10 no doubt. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8264b508ec2542dcbff7bcae65d8c5fb", "input": "Review: By rights, there should never have been a \"First Blood Part II\". The original script for \"First Blood\" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.The official title of this film was \"Rambo: First Blood Part II\", but it is more commonly known simply as \"Rambo\". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in \"First Blood\", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your \"trivia\" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.The tone of this film is very different from the first. In \"First Blood\" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In \"Rambo\" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made \"The Cassandra Crossing\", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and \"Rambo\" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.\"First Blood\" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. \"Rambo\", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong! By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to \"Rambo\", \"The Green Berets\" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c44bb1c85da3447ea60f674a9c98ce04", "input": "Review: The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c191dd7374f64d4a83b71e0f7c0185bc", "input": "Review: If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f30e2301fb274fd4b80a31ae237ee20c", "input": "Review: This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43f18a7329c94997a94769b01f1abc7d", "input": "Review: The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0ce3fe0b0f44c45b12d989568fcba9e", "input": "Review: I, like many die-hard Trekkers (or Trekkies, i don't care!) suffered through seven seasons of \"Star Trek Voyager\", dreaming of a better show when it was over, lamenting the end of \"Deep Space Nine\" in 1999. prayers, answered. \"Enterprise\" is fantastic. Fresh perspective, radically different characters, stunning new visuals, a pop-song for the intro. (I was shocked!) I can't think of anything I didn't like. sign me up for 10 seasons of this show. \"Star Trek\" is back - \"Voyager,\" nobody misses you! Keep on Trekkin'!> Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-465b5abe2e6b4bd6bd384a50fd480787", "input": "Review: I saw this film a while back and it's still at the top of my 'favorite movies' list. It is amazingly put together and what really makes the film are the detailed tid bits (such as the 'Cafe Bustelo' coffee crate being reused as a cup to wash her grandsons hair) that people aren't seeing because YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE HISPANIC. This is just one of those films that is very culturally specific and particular. Please do not bash this film if you have no prior knowledge of what foundation it's being built upon. I completely see what the writer/director was going for, and he hit the target perfectly! This film is highly deserving of a better rating. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c45b7b17aa842b6978779e93de52dc2", "input": "Review: Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9001b0ea4e964e10b55d629f334dcf48", "input": "Review: he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9bb1dd40d894d8b8be00d40b7eb6857", "input": "Review: Kojak meets the mafia. Telly Savales is one of those guys from the past that seems pretty forgettable. I never thought that his show was all that great. This is his one dimensional characterization of a crime boss, with very predictable results. If you take the car chases and the general rambling out, there isn't much plot development or action. I find mafia movies to be dull because I have no respect or interest in common criminals and their actions. Hollywood, and in this case, the Italian cinema, treat these guys as heroes. I saw the film and in a few days I won't remember much about it. Lots of shooting, innocent bystanders dying, betrayal, and that sick loyalty. The film is photographed pretty well and the acting is decent. But the dubbing is so bad (due to voices that just couldn't come out of those bodies), that I almost started looking for Godzilla approaching the bay. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe2822a007774cb799e17df232a336d9", "input": "Review: WOW! What - a - movie !!!!!!!!!!! I'm not at all a fan of contemporary Italian directors. Usually I don't like dramas. I am not a Will Smith super fan even thinking that he is a very good actor......but this movie ! It is such a great movie with a such original script and so good direction and so well acting...wow...it is stunning. This movie captured my attention minute by minute and I even did not like \"The pursuit of happiness\" (maybe also because i did not like the acting of Will's son who is a very bad actor while children usually seems all natural born actors, I saw him also last night in \"The day the earth stood still\" and I confirmed my sensation that Jaden can't act). I don't want to write spoilers and so i don't talk about the story but what I can say is that this movie talks about Love, Death and other feelings which i don't like to watch in movies....but THIS MOVIE is such a super great movie. If you have a minimum of heart you'll don't regret watching it Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45e211b9760b4f0facc7538f93b373f2", "input": "Review: I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a \"friend\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73059b2a563b430c913f2d1281c94a52", "input": "Review: For Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very disappointing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bd364d326ed4af2bf5495bc0d9d6834", "input": "Review: This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In \"13 Ghosts\" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). \"The Tingler\" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. \"Marabre\" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dfff6c020ec74af5bda24b97f51c73fa", "input": "Review: Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound\" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.Worst movie ever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c26bdb8a47e4bec9553b06f173fd9df", "input": "Review: let me say that i love Adam Sandler, watching reign over me i was paying close attention to his actingwhen he raises his voice, i cant help but think of happy gilmore yelling at a golf ball, then i snap back as Adam Sandler sucks me inReign over Me is a great film, a film that comes off slow at first with you expecting emotion in every sceneDon Cheadle always does a great job and is no exception here with some truly great lines and is worthy of an Oscar in any movie he doesadam sandler was amazing in so many ways not only was this his most dramatic/best acted film of his career. but i can recall laughing out loud at many parts of this filmThe supporting cast was great also with Saffron Burroughs and Jada Pinkett SmithI would highly recommend this movie its got tremendous acting beautiful shots of NYC great comedy great drama And a new found respect for Adam sandler if you ever doubted him or a reassurance at how great Don Cheadle is Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73f63cae22c24f27a70a78c472e8cd16", "input": "Review: I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d96ca5fa91d4bd29c13d9cb07d1d4d0", "input": "Review: I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c864a216b53a4f7683d552d9a3140dfe", "input": "Review: What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant \"Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets.\" The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a \"take the money and run role\",He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso. The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a708266862ac443f9df1eecd9e87724a", "input": "Review: First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are \"human\". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, \"That monkey is almost human!\" (that's actually a direct quote).Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs \"smile\", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps \"celebrating Christmas\", and this was enough to turn my stomach.But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, \"Want out. Hurry go.\"Obscure references are made to \"stress tests\" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a \"mother figure\". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.One chimp named \"Washoe\" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28b4e0013f6543429c3c5a6bc8cc16cf", "input": "Review: I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf48194f0a4a475490169e27c6125e1c", "input": "Review: i would like to comment the series as a great effort. The story line although requiring a few improvements was pretty well, especially in season 1. Season 2 however became more of a freak show, and lost DA's original charm. Season one story line was more interesting, a light side to the life at Jam pony while a focused serious plot with manticore chasing down the X-series. i was looking forward to new seasons, in fact i still am. I hope the FOX guys and DA production crew realize that a lot of ppl still wait for DA to make a comeback. Even after 2 yrs of it being cancelled, DA can make it big if worked on properly, and i think a name like James Cameron should take on this challenge. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce6d1178ac164f4987ffaf4d9b30e0ff", "input": "Review: Possible SPOILERS: Not SureWhile watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the \"Circle of Life\" or \"Can You Feel the Love Tonight\" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the \"I Just Can't Wait to be King\" sequence).The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the \"Who Wants to be King of the Jungle\" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e973efbd2b0465d8da5f1ee69077dd7", "input": "Review: The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aad11a3bb4984e2593f01c3c179437bd", "input": "Review: A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.\"The Blob\" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"A Bolha\" (\"The Blob\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be61c6a9adcc4b9e80a4ac3905d3bb76", "input": "Review: All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99a96fdc50444010a434bd9b2519e1ee", "input": "Review: I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aff9dbe163f480eaeeade09876bde4c", "input": "Review: That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a \"blockbuster\" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only \"horror\" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a \"drama/thriller\".But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6be0909058440c8916a40811d6630dd", "input": "Review: The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to \"prove\" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional \"Frankie and Johnny\" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ff7529f8b2d40bfaa21dc4b10235c16", "input": "Review: This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look \"authentic\". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c42ad12ddb74bb8a204ed6bc399c5f9", "input": "Review: What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d88449973b249f2a61f636e6b32a78a", "input": "Review: I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.Although this movie doesn't have the \"horror\" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, \"House of Wax\") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest. This is a must for Vincent Price fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca20ec6daca24a879d774a45f945c6db", "input": "Review: Besides all of the technical mistakes ....How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0373da3e008421995dc1ddf2e53d404", "input": "Review: This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0be525745a34a8ebb25452958dcfff0", "input": "Review: The story-line was rather interesting, but the characters were rather flat and at times too extreme in their thoughts/behavior. More extreme than necessary. Also, I think something went wrong in the casting. John Turtorro doesn't really satisfy me playing a semi-autistic chess player, not to speak of the Italian player. Motives weren't very much outlined either. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de84ddf53be94a1eb0dc30c93175683d", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7a976ea851a4b688649cf3e00485134", "input": "Review: Visconti's first film has all his trademark visual flair and immaculate technique, accompanied by compelling performances from Massimo Girotti as the handsome drifter and, best of all, Clara Calamai as the fabulous, frantic Giovanna. Remade several times as 'The Postman Rings Twice' but never bettered. Can't believe this was the man's first film! It shows the confidence of someone at the zenith of their career. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a935b58adc44fcda1e1d7c066d8b0fa", "input": "Review: OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. \"So what's the secret....punks?\" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. \"Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers\" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56fab53af26248b193d684df5516af57", "input": "Review: In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.\"Reign Over Me\" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"Reine Sobre Mim\" (\"Reign Over Me\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-97e805fe681d42e287fc368ce6b72d4d", "input": "Review: This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as \"Fury of the Wolfman\". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as \"Fury of the Wolfman\". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis...\"Chematodes\", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to \"change the direction of the human brain\", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to \"help them be human again\" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, \"Frankenstein's Bloody Terror\" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. \"Fury of the Wolfman\" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-152d49afec7c471691943b9028134a42", "input": "Review: Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution – his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier – talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life – living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army – swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast – Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from \"grand spectacle\" to \"small story\" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy – that feeling of \"being there\" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb6d01efdd814870ad497ea6b0b5a4bc", "input": "Review: Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5577218240b040ceb6c29a950a10f679", "input": "Review: First of all I saw this movie without knowing anything about it I just knew that Joel Schumacher did it and that was enough for me. A friend and I went to see it at a Danish film festival called the night-film festival which is a lot of different movies shown after hours the festival pretty much specializes in showing movies that wouldn't otherwise be shown in Danish theaters.Anyway My friend and I went to see it and we were astonished at how real it seemed and that it really struck a cord with our feelings, we really got caught up in the plot without being able to figure out the ending which is a great plus in our book.The film is recorded in a style that reminds me of the Danish initiative \"dogma 95\" which was started by 4 Danish directors including Lars Von Trier (Dancer In the Dark).In conclusion the movie is really worth seeing it gives a different perspective on how things were for the American G.I. Joe coming out of school being expected to serve their country in battle a long way from home.Also Colin Farrell is exceptional in this movie I haven't seen him before but I can't wait to see more of him.Lars P. Helvard Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e511a15361f74c429786b341b7c71795", "input": "Review: Worth watching twice because of the rapid-paced causal shifts among several compelling stories, \"Bug\" emerges as a wholly satisfying work of art that plays ever-optimistic love against myriad examples of frustrating reality.My favorite characters are Wallace (John Carroll Lynch)whose overriding concern for life--from that of a cockroach to the airline passengers for whom he is partially responsible--frames the film; Olive (Christina Kirk), who spends considerable time creating surreal but tasty meals for her impossible husband Ernie (Chris Bauer); and Mitchell, a cable TV technician with unbounded trust in fortune cookie messages: \"You will meet the girl of your dreams.\"Against such optimism are the forces of quirky reality, all generated by actions of the characters: parking tickets, a clogged drain in a Chinese food/donut shop, TV disruption, a crushed auto fender, an obliterated dinner reservation that eventually results in cancellation of a Hawaiian vacation.The film is funny: Olive getting drunk at a Chippendale performance, Johnston (Michael Hitchcock)as a customer service rep attempting to deal with an irate customer, the germ-obsessive Cyr (Brian Cox) facing a restaurant inspector, Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) reacting to his girlfriend's refusal to have children by writing hostile Chinese cookie fortunes: \"Your girlfriend is lying to you\" and the guy who falls asleep while manning a jackhammer because he spent the night looking for his girlfriend's missing cat.A minor story with public cable access host (Darryl Theirse) and a local acting teacher reading from \"The Boy in the Bubble\" expresses the major theme: love comes from the heart.\"Bug\" entertains on much the same level as \"trains, planes and automobiles\" but on a lower budget and with a fresher eye. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-689d352111dc452eb8091ef878d019a1", "input": "Review: I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For \"tiny\" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in \"Strike!(1998),\" when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked \"Was it beautiful?\"Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6bcbf7b4a70b41d981bbd61509e7150b", "input": "Review: Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1802548b5d02409d814ea6a6e0e52cf9", "input": "Review: It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then \"Aloha Oe\" on the beach! It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d465b9184bcf45adb83dbbc06d981a6e", "input": "Review: I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played \"Thunderbirds\" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30888ed480b04d03a5a52249c9fd5a9a", "input": "Review: Lost, probably the best t.v series ever made. the storyline is clever and when all your questions are answered watching one episode, 100 more are raised. if lost can carry on it's magnificent ways and not get too carried away then it will be stapled the best show ever. The survivors of a plane crash are forced to live with each other on a remote island, a dangerous new world that poses unique threats of its own. after reading this your thinking how on earth can that be interesting? and heres your answer, every season SO FAR has always been full of surprises, your always questioning your self why did that just happened and what's gonna happen next each time, very unexpected thing's happen and the story goes on wonderfully SO FAR! The series just sucks you in, it's chilling and very addictive, everything from the wonderful creators and directing to the magnificent performances by the cast creates a very believable story. Lost is simply unbelievable, amazing, highly entertaining, top notch, t.v at it's best.How ever you want to put it. Lost beat's all other show's by a landslide. And if your hating or criticising Lost you don't know how to watch t.v or watch drama. Lost simply doesn't disappoint, you would think a series carrying on for so long can't keep getting better. But it does! It just keep's on flowing it's unlike anything you would ever think off. \"Every thing happens for a reason.\" And that is truly shown in the series. Eventually you will reach a point were all the clues and everything that's happened or being done adds up. You will feel and realise how the characters have changed and how and why everything is going on. The 10 minutes of excitement: You see something you didn't see coming, something major has happened to character or on the island. There's hope somewhere. You see a major twist that can or will change everything. You hear your thought's churn, you wonder what's gonna happen next. Your heart beating. The 30 minutes of brilliance: You see a flawless scenes, tension building, you hear wonderful music by Michael Giacchino. You see great flash backs, impressive acting. You see wittiness, chilling atmosphere, which then get's converted back into tension.Everyone has there show that they are addicted too, that they can't get enough of, that they admire every minute and can't wait for the next episode, That they talk about 24/7. Too me and many others it's this series. Lost. Once you start watching, you won't get enough. The creators did a flawless job. Lost is completely unique and original, you won't see anything like it. The clever idea of \"flashbacks and flashforwards\" and something major and different in every season sucks your thoughts. Would they ever make a series like \"LOST\"? Something so interesting and something you will always remember. It simply has stunned the world when it hit t.v. A new generation of dramatic/sci-fi. A instant classic before it reached out to the viewers.I'm sure you all heard of lost and it's 5 star reviews, and your annoying friend that won't stop telling you about it, so what's stopping you from watching?Every episode leads to something new and it just doesn't stop getting better and better, you get more interested as it goes along, you learn things that are on the island that you wouldn't even think off. The characters start to become very likable, and if your the critic type you would love to see Lost in further detail, things like how the relationship between characters develop and how they learn the ways to under look and take on challenges from the Island. All together it's a great drama and a flawless series. I guess we just all hope that lost will not have a downfall in the episodes to come and go to far.....so if you don't watch lost, read the comment from the top again and you should change your mind. Seeing is believing, so until you start watching you will never know .I strongly recommend this masterpiece of series: LOST!! start watching!!! You have not seen nothing until you watch LOST!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33c32e9700824ab397f02f008fb47034", "input": "Review: I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-668f8db5fb104f9bbefaf3864d2c45d9", "input": "Review: At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: \"No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.\". Indeed.'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: \"I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eecb8f2086bf487d977a4dc400b83f51", "input": "Review: This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4214f2dc7b6845a0b4ae7e45856c27d9", "input": "Review: I found this a very entertaining small kids movie that actually is geared more for adults with a lot of jokes and humor only they would understand. A few things are inappropriate for the kiddies, but just a few. Othewise, \"The Grinch\" (Jim Carrey) cracks so many jokes you can't keep up with them all, ranging from sexual to cultural to insider-Hollywood to racial.The film is very colorful and looks great on DVD. The little girl in here, \"Cindy Lou Who\" (Taylor Momsen) is really cute and the costumes and hairdos of the little people in here are fun to view. Anthony Hopkins' voice is pleasing, too, so having his narrate this elevates the movie further. His rhymes are fun to hear.I saw this in the theater, though it was \"fair,\" but on DVD, it was far better. I've seen in three times and it got better each time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe0d6e8a59ce4b67bd686b95342c4c44", "input": "Review: The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot \"The Cage.\" The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier \"The Enemy Within\" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f500734a3814e5ebc6f66ba6fe56518", "input": "Review: Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.The last credit in this film explains its appeal - \"Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed.\" A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-129f4daa73d14da7aa4f95701d02299d", "input": "Review: I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a496ea2aabb64685bb4e9aaf337f5943", "input": "Review: This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18dbafcd4a3146459d7d2a75eba50d20", "input": "Review: this movie, i won't call it a \"film,\" was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.but let's have something with a bit more substance.loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.but one cameo after another gets old fast.i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the \"greatest generation,\" as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad8ac3eff83e4a9682641ca46149bfcc", "input": "Review: Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c9ab3c6b5014a69926aa9a75731aabe", "input": "Review: Kabei: Our Mother (2008) is a poetic and sublime beauty from Japan. A real weeper! I had heard great reviews for the film and rented it from Netflix. Am I glad I did! In many ways this film reminded me of the old style of Japanese classic film-making from the 1940's and 1950's that I've come to love so much, such as seen in Yasujiro Ozu pictures -- the title credits even begin in the same way, with the Japanese letters (characters) in red against neutral color burlap material. I immediately thought: this director loves Ozu. The same style was used too: mostly indoor sets with only a few outdoor scenes. Even a couple of \"pillow shots\", as Roger Ebert calls them. The strength of the film is built on the love of the characters for one another.The story follows the lives of a Japanese family before, and during, and after, World War Two. The mother takes care of her growing girls the best she can after the father (a University professor) is arrested for anti-war sympathies. He's never freed and only has a few brief meetings with his wife in prison before he dies of starvation and disease. Meanwhile a former student of the professor comes by often to help take care of the mother and two girls. He begins to fall in love with the mother and is a substitute father for the two girls. But war starts and he's drafted and they have to say an abrupt farewell. Will they ever express their love for one another? Will he ever return from the war? There is so much heart and gentle spirit in the performance of the lead actress, Sayuri Yoshinaga. She's almost a Madonna type, she's so beautiful! Big soulful eyes and flawless skin. The actor who plays the student is phenomenal as well: his name is Tadanobu Asano. What a sensitive performance. There is no macho in him at all; he's gentle and kind. I'd certainly love to see both of these two in other movies. I think I'll check to see what's available for them. The two little child actresses are wonderful too.The film is just released on NTSC DVD for American audiences, with very easy to read English subtitles. I gave it a 10 out of 10 on the IMDb. I cried almost as much as with the Japanese film classic Twenty-Four Eyes (1954). Don't miss this film! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b5561d2c746425cb0fb36cbcc425e2b", "input": "Review: LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a \"renegade\" cop within a \"renegade\" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of \"gentle giant\" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e0534d701874dbb989caff10a56bc34", "input": "Review: Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN\"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5ed6226153c4e40b005e78b17bc8c13", "input": "Review: Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. \"Listen,\" their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-531f29aca3184dbebbda57285e75aece", "input": "Review: Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e1c40a8e5fa14102bf93c66780cde2a6", "input": "Review: I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. ... but the movie was confused and pointless ...it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. A serious waste of time.B Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d20f7dcae3554e8cb2227a841b080df9", "input": "Review: I've been watching \"Dick Tracy\" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as \"Mumbles,\" and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50955c58b7f14aeb855028c3b10d26ce", "input": "Review: I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would \"hook up\" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3bb8be4b01a4186aabb7fe2c6cc9be2", "input": "Review: Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2eeb1aab773f4308ae001c3366d983f5", "input": "Review: Everybody's got bills to pay, and that includes Christopher Walken.In Vietnam, a group a soldiers discover that the war is over and are heading back home when they spot a bunch of POWs, including Christopher Walken. Following a Mad Max 3 (!) Thunderdome fight, and a short massacre later. Walken and some Colombian guy split a dollar bill promising something or other.Cut to the present (1991), and Colombian guy is leading a revolution against El Presidente. He's successful at first, but after El Presidente threatens to crush folks with a tank, he's forced to surrender and is shot in the head on live television. This is shown in full gory detail as a news flash on American telly, which leads Walken to assemble the old squad (even though he wasn't actually part of that squad to begin with), in order to invade Colombia and gun down thousands of people.McBain is a monumentally stupid film, but for all that it's also a good laugh, and action packed too. This is one of those movies where logic is given a wide berth - how else could Walken shoot a fighter pilot in the head from another plane without suffering from decompression, or even breaking a window? Also, it seems that these guys can gun down scores of drug dealers in New York without the police bothering.There's plenty of b-movie madness to chew on here, from Michael Ironside's diabolical acting in the Vietnam sequence, to the heroic but entirely pointless death of one of the heroes, to the side splitting confrontation between Walken and El Presidente, and let's not forget the impassioned speech by the sister of the rebel leader, being watched on television in America (nearly brought a brown tear to my nether-eye, that bit).It's out there for a quid. Buy it if you have a sense of humour. See how many times you can spot the camera crew too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a55f1ff504cc48dfb91a3da56bda288d", "input": "Review: The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book \"Star Trek Memories,\" this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in \"Plato's Stepchildren,\" play music with Hippies in \"the Way to Eden\" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best \"unusual and high quality shows\" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, \"All Our Yesterdays\" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.' Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9717d8fba1414ee68601090669e2da1b", "input": "Review: As a kid I remember being nine or ten and loving this movie. It was the all round Bollywood action/comedy movie. It is a imitation of Bad Boys obviously! The whole swapping identities but the arrival of two other twins throws everything out of the window and then the arrival of colourful villains who dance and sing! The action scenes in the film aren't revolutionary but still amazing scenes. The film is genuinely very funny and was the great comeback Amitabh Bachan needed. Govinda is a gem like always and this is probably his best work to date, he shines as the side kick nd delivers the best comedy scenes available in Indian cinema.The songs....The songs are both funny and catchy..............proving laughs when you least expect it...Amitabh Bachan surprisingly is very funny and will make you laugh as 'Bade Miah'....his accent...body language..... Brilliant...'Assi chutki naab re daal' is the best song..............Hilarious. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3949b71c621a46279a41f777be6b6395", "input": "Review: Leave it to Paul \"sex on the brain\" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43d7fb0cb7374234b27206972c7af92c", "input": "Review: I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting......and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing \"Happy birthday to Fu\"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, \"Your face-- is familiar.\") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a \"campy\" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it \"right\". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they \"audition\" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people \"audition\" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a \"proper\" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53ef2bce45304ee59c321e92ac35a994", "input": "Review: Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01d3876632bd45dbac4fc1a2e09c330c", "input": "Review: Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian \"sandals and toga\" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why \"Gladiator\" went over well, but \"Gladiator\" did not have all the romance novel sex.Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f90563a1e5654793a25bacb02bf5399d", "input": "Review: Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill \"One-Take\" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-753a558b151145caae90bc1c710cc7c6", "input": "Review: Wow...I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.Wow...I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.Wow...Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.Wow...Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecce921a21e74de190d0be237f534b40", "input": "Review: Sorry. Someone has to say it. This really is/was a dull movie. Worthy perhaps, but dull nonetheless. I nearly cried with boredom when watching it. The acting is pretty dire, the story drawn out and predictable, the score and camera-work totally standard and unexciting. It's one of those movies you are not allowed to hate (becase it is about disabled people) but hate it I suspect nearly everyone does. It is interesting that critics have been so kind to this movie. I suppose they too are not allowed to be objective. This was made to win awards - which I remember it duly did. But it was neither interesting nor entertaining. I haven't seen the play so cannot compare. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e5722a9161a4b74a347ff9ad1b8fee1", "input": "Review: After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film \"Drohkaal\". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-444634f69dcb40449ea6f5a5c163802e", "input": "Review: ....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being \"generous\" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed \"frustrated\" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of \"big\"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the \"actors'\" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures \"scenes\"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f82670db1f2496d88a3592a3e71e9e1", "input": "Review: A propaganda film for the Palestinian \"cause\". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9241667902e6454fa907149e736555b8", "input": "Review: Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, \"Well, that's not what I expected.\" But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f02f5e9a454469d934c6028a6100513", "input": "Review: Kim Basinger stars as Della, a housewife who has twin children (Terri and Tammi-played by Luke Gair and Erika-Shaye Gair) and an abusive jerk for a husband (Kenneth), played by Craig Sheffer.The movie opens on Christmas Eve. Kenneth is on his way home from work, driving a nice car too I might add. He is on his cellphone arguing with a business partner I would assume. When he gets home, he sees that the floor is a mess with shoes and toys spread all about. This angers him even more and he takes up with his wife, Della, asking her why the house is always a mess. He pins her up against the wall. The twin's watch from the stairs. He punches the wall, leaving a hole in it and walks away. She tends to the children, trying to comfort them. After that is all said in done, she needs to go to the mall to do some last minute shopping and because she is out of wrapping paper. She gets there and the parking lot is full because there is a lot of last minute shoppers there. While she is looking for a parking space, she notices a car taking up two spaces and this irks her. She finally finds a spot to park, makes her way over to the hoggish car and leaves a note under the wiper calling the owner a \"selfish jerk\". Then she goes in the mall to do her last minute shopping.When she finally does leave the mall, it is closing and many people have left already. Not the owner of the car she left the note on however and she notices this on the way to her vehicle. She also notices that the note she left under the wiper is no longer there. Odd. When she gets to her vehicle, she gets in to start it up. She notices a car coming up behind her and it blocks her from backing up. She gets out of the car only to be confronted by the owner of the car (Chuckie-played by Lukas Haas) she left the note on and a posse of his thug friends. Yelling ensues and a mall cop (no, not Paul Blart) makes his way over to them to see what the problem is, only to have his brains blown out of his head by Chuckie. While this happens, Della jumps in her vehicle, starts it and drives over the median in front of her. Chuckie and his posse hop in his car and give chase. Della ends up crashing her vehicle into a log pile at a housing development but she is unharmed. She manages to make it to the back of her vehicle, open up the hatchback and grab a toolbox before the thugs get there. With that, Della spends the rest of the night trying to outrun and out wit the thugs armed with only the tools that she has in her toolbox as weapons. The first kill, in my opinion, is the best. The first kill that Della performs anyway. The last one was probably the weakest and it should of been the best considering that this was the main bad guy she was offing. I will admit that there will be some that are put off buy the ending and I was let down a bit myself. As a whole though it was a fun flick and moves along nicely at it's 1 hour and 20 minute run time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a57865b58043499db996b9cb0f473027", "input": "Review: Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-46f26d215a684732b478c0dd6c0c1935", "input": "Review: This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9ce54a0372a42499868507fc84697fd", "input": "Review: These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55646d3f3055479291d86a0fb3f3bda9", "input": "Review: A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9949e0641dc4208a1a99e086048416e", "input": "Review: I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, \"What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot.\"Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes \"Pedro\" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d7d38fcadae4f0fb323d25664948ef4", "input": "Review: This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-991a876aefb14bb2a179e6c909c51a17", "input": "Review: I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d33ae0fafe3749b481a09b1b174e1980", "input": "Review: Very good point there : \"only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb\" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;).. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2b231476fac45da87d05e07c8b979c2", "input": "Review: This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing \"partner\", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little \"Mary\" of the early \"Little Rascals\" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram \"B's\" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of \"nerve tonic\", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little \"B\", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdb3ca7a87d84b19b7af5a090baced21", "input": "Review: In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.\"Reign Over Me\" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"Reine Sobre Mim\" (\"Reign Over Me\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f78796d87e924215bbb982124500aa45", "input": "Review: The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself. I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find \"Higher Learning\" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34090d97d8d542c9a05559dce4761b37", "input": "Review: The nearest I ever came to seeing this was a clip shown at a Gerard Philippe exposition in Paris about two years ago. I had no interest in the remake and having just caught up with the original just over half a century after it was made I can only conclude that the inept fencing was intentional, aimed at a long obsolete target. Hollywood had been doing realistic sword fights since the 30s when the greatest of them all, Basil Rathbone, crossed foils with Errol Flynn and others so the technique was available and so that leaves only satire. After a while you don't notice and revel in the Henri Jeanson dialogue reminiscent of the Prisoner Of Zenda, both versions. Gerard Philippe certainly had the presence to bring off a role like this and Gina Lollabrigida was probably a tad better than Martine Carol, the other obvious candidate at the time. The print I saw was particularly bad and at one point broke down completely so maybe a DVD version would enhance it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a082647cc3fd48d9bdb0e582af04cd3f", "input": "Review: This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcbcd7e225b640b883e66be0d02a2478", "input": "Review: In this glorious telling of a weekend shared among literary greats. Mary and Percy Shelly,Lord Byron and others created a entrancing group. Showing their quests for sexual enlightenment. Personal freedoms from political to moral. Liberal drug use for both stimulations and as addiction. Their creative views of life and writing. Describing without boring the viewer how each writer seeks to find their muse. Along with the distractions and affections each share. With breathtaking scenery that does not detract but very much enhances the story. Well created characters from grim to loving then angry to peaceful. With some of the most lovely and scene enhancing costuming to be had. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-64336d60f7144d88b5ee0ff36ac8204f", "input": "Review: (A possible spoiler or two) \"Soul Survivors\" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch. I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b01916ba1e2148e8910b55de81cfc4f8", "input": "Review: Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f3f33d2c5454cf492b671041787dd4d", "input": "Review: Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcbd7125f6174b5aa57150a4244c49ba", "input": "Review: \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is about a woman who always wanted to be an actress but instead became one of the most famous pin up girls in the history of America. Bettie Page played by Gretchen Mol was one of the first sex icons in America. The type of modeling Bettie Page took part in included nudity and bondage which lead to a U.S Senate investigation in the 1950s.Walking out of the film, all I could think about was how far we have come in terms of pornography since the 1950s. You can go on the internet now and find some of most disturbing and shocking images ever shot, that the footage questioned in \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" seems almost childlike and innocent. Most of the footage including the bondage did not feature nudity when Bettie Page was involved yet today we have sick images where we can see women having sex with animals. I find that maybe the envelope has been pushed a little too far since the 1950s because looking at this movie in terms of today's pornography, it was very tastefully done.To be honest, I was pretty impressed with \"The Notorious Bettie Page,\" I found the film to be very well done and interesting. The movie is exactly what the trailer leads you to believe it will be and is a very interesting look at one of the first female sex icons in America. Gretchen Mol looks just like Bettie Page and gives a very fine performance. I also thought that since the movie was shot in black and white it made the film seem realistic because it made the audience believe they were watching a film created in the late 1950s.My only complaint about the film was the running time, there seemed to be a few scenes that were cut and seemed to be a little shorter than they should have been. I looked this up and it seems that 10 minutes was cut from the film since its original showing at the Toronto Film Festival. Also the ending was pretty tame and I was expecting a little more from it or maybe some paragraphs to come on the screen to tell the audience more about Bettie Page's life where the film left off. Those are my only two complaints about the film other than that the directing was solid, the acting was great especially Gretchen, and the writing was good.Mary Harron, who directed \"American Psycho\", which is one of my favorite films, is the director and writer of \"The Notorious Bettie Page.\" I feel that Mary is a very talented director who knows how to create a setting and create great movies based on characters because like \"Psycho\", Bettie Page is a character study and a fine one at that. Harron captures the 40s and 50s with ease as well as all the characters. She is a very talented director who I hope will be around for many years to come.Bottom Line: \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is definitely worth a look. It's a very interesting story that shows how far America, as well as the world, has come in terms of pornography. The film also provides a fine performance by Gretchen Mol who literally nails the role of Bettie Page on the head. And top it off with a talented director who was able to capture the look and feel of a previous era and you have a good movie on your hands. Sadly, this film is probably going to flop since not many besides people who grew up in this era will show interest in the film but I think it's worth checking out.MovieManMenzel's final rating for \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is a 8/10. It's an interesting character study about one of the most famous pin up girls and sex icons in American history. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c51ea99ebd7480fb32299133005d698", "input": "Review: If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e75afafdc114c33be30b51b59920e0d", "input": "Review: For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-221dbe3a217d490ca3df3e3173d1eb95", "input": "Review: When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, \"wow, finally, some entertainment.\" It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH \"playing around\" time.At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...I believe \"Good Day LA\" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's \"Today.\" ABC's \"Good Morning America\" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-10a690b0393a4b6a891093e634e07190", "input": "Review: I saw this film on television and fascinated by the beauty of Jennifer Mccomb. It was a neat film and you can watch it for the beauty of Africa and of course Mccomb. At that time I was thrilled watching this movie and from then onwards I am trying for VCD of this film but I am unable to find it. Huge African lions makes appearance int his film and we will be spell bounded simply by the size of those animals and grace of them. All section of audience can watch this movie particularly children will enjoy this film. But some scenes involving Mccomb forces parental guidance for this film. It is a enjoyable holiday movie for one and all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8a6919b318d460d84176486728e3a15", "input": "Review: I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-042beed4d1b74f04880f6eb87fb87431", "input": "Review: I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-63ca732c6ddd4b41a730d095ba4caceb", "input": "Review: THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say \"oh sh*t!\" and \"get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s\" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-941618d1161644dba5b07e0d2b2bc1f1", "input": "Review: I had the privilege of watching Scarface on the big screen with its beautifully restored 35mm print in honor of the 20th anniversary of the films release. It was great to see this on the big screen as so much of it is lost on television sets and the overall largesse of this project cannot be emphasized enough. Scarface is the remake of a classic rags to riches to the depths of hell story featuring Al Pacino as Cuban drug lord Tony Montana. In this version, Tony comes to America during the Cuban boat people immigration wave in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Tony and his cohorts quickly get green cards by offing a political figure in Tent City and after a brief stay at a Cuban restaurant; Tony is launched on his horrific path to towards total destruction. Many of the characters in this movie a played in such skilled manner that is so enjoyable to watch I have forgot little of this film over the last twenty years. Robert Loggia as Tony's patron, Frank Lopez is wonderful. His character is flawed by being too trusting, and as Tony quickly figures out, soft. Lopez's right hand, Omar Suarez is portrayed by one of our greatest actors, F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus.) Suarez is the ultimate toady and will do anything for Frank; it is like he does not have a mind of his own. Tony quickly sees this and he constantly battles with Suarez, but really only sees him as a minor problem to get through on his way to the top. The character that always comes back to me as being played so perfectly is Mel Bernstein, the audaciously corrupt Miami Narcotics detective played by Harris Yulin (Training Day.) Mel, without guilt extorts great sums of money form all sides of the drug industry. He plays Tony off of Frank until it catches up with him in a scene that marks the exit from the film of both Frank and Mel. It is priceless to hear Frank asking for Mel to intercede, as Tony is about to kill him only to hear Mel reply, `It's your tree Frank, you're sitting in it.' This is from the man who Frank had been paying for protection!Tony's rise is meteoric and is only matched in speed and intensity by his quick crash and burn. After offing Frank and taking his wife and business Tony's greed takes over and he never can seem to get enough. As Tony plunges deeper into the world of drugs, greed and the inability to trust he eventually kills his best friend and his sister who had fallen in love and married. This all sets up the ending in which Tony's compound is stormed by an army from his supplier who feels betrayed because Tony would not go through with a political assassination that was ordered. This all stems form a compassionate moment when Tony refused to be an accomplice in a murder that would have involved the victim's wife and children.All in all this is a great depiction of 1980s excess and cocaine culture. DePalma does a nice job of holding it all together in one of the fastest moving three hour movies around. The violence is extremely graphic and contains a few scenes that will be forever etched on any viewers mind, particularly the gruesome chainsaw seen, the two point blank shots to the head and the entire bloody melee that ends the movie. This is a highly recommended stylistically done film that is not for the squeamish, or for those who need upbeat endings and potential sequels; DePalma let it all fly right here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77e8253d9d614b8e9a71bf6192cd8ca8", "input": "Review: One of those classics, held up next to \"Deep Throat\" and \"Behind the Green Door.\"Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-716a6b86541f4d399051ee554f2a9689", "input": "Review: I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddc773e7c0de4b20bf67bcff845856c7", "input": "Review: The above seemed a much more appropriate title when me and my suicidal underlings decided to watch this masterpiece of modern bullshit Erotic,Scary, Suspenseful, Well thought out, these are all the things this film fails to be.It is however incredibly funny, the slow sound effects and bad dubbing add to this to make one of the greatest comedies I have seen in recent years. And yet this film doesn't even try to be funny and that is one of the movies grand achievements, it becomes a comedy without even attempting to amuse.Throughout the film an old guy who looks amazingly like Santa Claus goes around ploughing over zombies and smashing vampires into the ground. This made me fail to believe the films title, if this was vampires vs zombies why were the vampires and zombies not fighting? Oh well whatever, besides there were more flaws to this rental than the title. Such as this one; there has been a virus sweeping through America creating zombie like beings who go around acting a lot like your average tourist. And yet there's only four zombies in the entire film. Another problem is besides one shop everywhere is deserted. Surely you'd see zombies roaming about in the woods or in the background a bit. In fact I believe they just drove around in a circle of forest over and over again since they didn't have a high enough budget to film in a wider location, that or the director didn't want to waste his precious time filming in different areas of wood he was to busy sitting in a trailer jerking off to be bothered with such trivial matters.In fact the director had so much fun doing this that he didn't have enough time to hire a big enough cast or even an editor. And so he told the eight members of the cast to dress up as different people and try not to act inconspicuous, whilst I assume he changed his name and began randomly snipping at the film reels \"editing isn't a hard job anyway right?\" The only reason this \"movie\" found it's way into our bag was because somehow we got it confused with Freddy vs Jason, strange how these things happen isn't it. And the only way we made it though the night was by strapping gas masks on and bolting them to our skulls to avoid the stink of this nauseating mess.Oh yes we did laugh at the end, but I'm sure one does that a lot when he has lost his sanity................... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2de9326e403c468c9106554a4001e179", "input": "Review: An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5aedcac9cad74adbac6471d07dae2397", "input": "Review: An OUR GANG Comedy Short.The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5bc5316d06c467eabcbc41b55a641e5", "input": "Review: The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-874cbbdcfc684d2e979c5396fb95b3c6", "input": "Review: \"Tintin and I\" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf9771184beb42a99fdb8c55665b3744", "input": "Review: This is probably my favorite movie of all time. It is perfection in its storytelling. It will break your heart not because it's over sentimental but because you will truly feel every emotion these characters go through. You feel for Doggie because of the hopeless situation that existed for young girls in China at that time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59647268a2384210ab5d7ad8cebc6d42", "input": "Review: After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER. I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a03fdd817bd4c0897d1a240c62806ca", "input": "Review: Finally, the uncut version of \"Baby Face\" surfaces and from what source? The Library of Congress. The restored four minutes, snippets here and there, make for a much better film. We now know that Baby Face was pimped by her old man from the time she was at least fourteen years of age. Another reason d'tat for her behavior and cold, calculating exterior.Barbara Stanwyck is indeed amazing in the role of Lily Powers (notice the moniker), a part that called for just the right amount of sexuality coated with power, cunning, and revenge, yet tinged with virginal pretense when called for, a very difficult portrayal to make convincing. Barbara Stanwyck conveys the necessary nuances to show that though she sleeps her way to the top (literally), she still has good in her heart--note the way she treats those few who have been kind to her such as Chico (the marvelous actress Theresa Harris) and the old philosopher. And though she exploits her sexuality to make mush of men who are rich and powerful, those same men are attempting to exploit her for their carnal desires with no intention of permanent ties until they fall in love with her.Lily Powers fails to understand, at first, that emotions are difficult to ride, that it's easy to lose control. One possible result is death. Hitching a wagon to a star of course materialism can take one to a destination where nothing else exists but the ephemeral, and it's a cold lonely location.A word should be said about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche whose will to power is stressed in \"Baby Face\" by the elderly philosopher who befriends Lilly when she is still turning tricks for her old man. \"Baby Face\" was released the same year Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany. Though it's highly unlikely that the semi-literate Hitler understood much about Nietzsche, he considered himself a Nietzschean to the nth degree and touted it along side his other rantings. \"Baby Face\" serves as an indictment of the popular interpretation of Nietzsche's will to power concept, especially in the final scenes.Although \"You've got the cutest little baby face.\" is apropos as a theme for \"Baby Face,\" an even more telling and applicable melody is W. C. Handy's \"St. Louis Blues\" played throughout the film, especially at times when the camera has to drift away from what would otherwise be sexually explicit scenes. \"St. Louis Blues\" is also used wisely toward the end as Lily begins to see beyond materialism to eternal values. Chico is singing a raw, salacious version of \"St. Louis Blues\" when Lily, now disagreeing with the lyrics, orders her to stop.The restored version of \"Baby Face\" makes the film more modern in its approach and attitude toward sex as power than many a new Hollywood release. By all means watch this gem from the distant past and enjoy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-063c10518175431eac6c56a1c2573fc6", "input": "Review: The movie \"Holly\" is the story of a young girl who has been sold by her poor family and smuggled across the border to Cambodia to work as a prostitute in the infamous \"K11\" red light village. In the movie, Holly is waiting to be sold at a premium for her virginity when she meets Patrick who is losing money and friends through gambling and bar fights. Patrick and Holly have an immediate bond over their \"stubbornness\", but this is all disrupted when Holly is sold to a child trafficker and disappears. As movie goers, we are then thrust into Patrick's pursuit to find Holly again. Holly then shows her willingness to leave this lifestyle but her confusion on what is right and wrong. \"Holly\" carries us through the beautiful and harsh Cambodia while discovering that HOLLY is not just one girl. She is the voice of millions of children who are exploited and violated every year with no rights or protection.Holly is less extreme than its subject matter might suggest, such as documentaries that involve 4-year olds and sexual trafficking, but does manage to shed considerable light on Cambodian / Vietnamese trafficking of children into prostitution. It is a moving story that helps to shed light on the horrible situation in which many children face and their struggles to trust and realize what is right and wrong.Patrick, the antagonist of the film is an American dealer of stolen artifacts who is also losing money and friends while playing cards and getting into bar fights. While on a journey, his motorbike runs out of fuel, and he is forced to rent a room at a brothel. During his stay he comes across Holly, a twelve year old girl who has been sold by her parents and is being abducted into slavery and prostitution. Holly and Patrick begin a friendship of trust and understanding. He discovers a clever, stubborn girl beneath the traumatized exterior and becomes determined to save her -- though their strictly platonic relationship is misinterpreted by almost everyone they meet. When she suddenly disappears, he starts a journey to track her down, without having thought if he can really help her.Holly is able to escape on her way to another brothel, when she jumps from the truck and runs into a field filled with mines. A mine is set off by a cow and the truck driver believes she is dead, so Holly is then left on her own. During Patrick's journey to find holly he meets a social worker who tries to talk some sense into him and shares the facts with him that haunts the Cambodian region. The idea of paying for her freedom simply fuels the demand, she explains: 30,000 children in prostitution in Cambodia - next year it could be 60,000. \"I'm not trying to save 60,000,\" he tells her, \"I'm trying to save one.\" Patrick discovers that the idea of whisking her to safety is quickly put to rest when the social worker tells him that the US will not let him adopt and, although it takes five minutes to 'save' a child, it takes five years to reintegrate her into society. Patrick is not affected by the information and he continues his quest to find Holly.The audience is then shown that Holly makes it to a small town and is foraging for food with other homeless children. She is then befriended by a local policemen who seem little better than criminals with a badge, when they sell her to another brothel and then make a deal to a Vietnamese businessman who then takes her virginity. Holly then seems to think that this is her destiny and when Patrick finally find her, she is willing to \"yum yum\" and \"boom boom\" her distant friend. Patrick is utterly confused by this change in behavior, but he is not deterred in his plan to take her away from this world. In the end, he steals her away and brings her to a safe-land in the comfort of the social worker. Holly is given fresh clothes, if feed and brought to a dance class, but she is forbidden to see Patrick. This intense yearning to be in the comfort of Patrick's friendship, she runs away from the safe house and back onto the streets in Cambodia.Meanwhile, Patrick is dealing with the decision to leave the country and flee back to the United States or to stay in Cambodia. His thoughts continue to revert back to Holly and during a visit to a bar; an older male sees the picture he is holding and comments on his sexual appetite when he had sex with her. This enrages Patrick and he hits the man and runs out of the bar. Eventually, Patrick is caught by the police in the eyes of Holly, who is hiding behind a pole.The movie \"Holly\" may make the audience want to donate money towards organizations that improve the life for these poor youngsters, and even campaign to reduce the amount of brothels in the region, but the film's dramatic weaknesses may reduce its chances of being seen by enough people to make a difference. Overall, I think the concept is better as a documentary and it was not as touching as a movie. The actors did a great job of showing their raw emotion and the true confusion of the youngsters who are affected by this lifestyle, but in the end, the harsh lifestyle of the region and the desperate notions of the parents who sell their children to uphold their own starvation, does nothing to help the children's situations. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f34975122db4abeae07624b4cc3f0e6", "input": "Review: Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8281099c72f44c948133cbac72499ee7", "input": "Review: Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's \"Ran\". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near \"Ran's\" league. Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's \"Seven Swords\", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4480c2c758443e2bb41a1b222eabfc5", "input": "Review: I saw this movie back in 1984, we first started watching \"This Is Spinal Tap\" and after 5 minutes we were ready to fall asleep. So we went instead to see this movie. If you have any conspiracy theory's going around in your head, you will want to watch this one. The question you have to ask yourself when watching this movie are: Do you think the government would be capable of doing this? (In my opinion there is no doubt that they could) But I don't want to give out too much information as that would be a spoiler and I think that you should view the movie for yourself.But, just to let you know, we still talk about this movie 20 years later and trying to explain it to people is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-744e5563666a47b9a0416aabda8e8a96", "input": "Review: If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, \"no, don't do that!\", \"why are you so stupid\", \"look out!\", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-580163c079614caba1cfe3859b7f32e7", "input": "Review: Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7732c3bebb9f4f2bb671723e1ffba6d3", "input": "Review: I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. \"Gone with the Wind\", \"Gettysburg\" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even \"Gettysburg\" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written \"Jack\" instead of \"Jake\" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become \"bushwhackers\" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f42f6657a8f64fc09e25c40e6172f723", "input": "Review: There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word \"Venom\" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee88ed8168714e57927988949320374b", "input": "Review: Yes, Shakespeare would indeed have been proud. Laurence Fishburne was not at his best but certainly not bad. Kenneth Brannagh on the other hand was brilliant. His scheming was wonderful as was his toying with the audience. Very nice work.There were at times too little drama where more would have been expected. Cassio's slaying, for instance, was a bit clouded by too much happening to far apart, causing the spectator to twist his head to grasp it all.Did I mention Michael Maloney? His madness striken Roderigo was unusual; annoying even.If you haven't seen Othello before, see this. If you haven't read Othello, see this. If you haven't heard Othello, see this. You do, on the other hand, do yourself a favour by reading it, seeing it acted onstage and hearing it sung too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4eb3b363dff948e9bad78d64ee7631bc", "input": "Review: In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06126f4631934d518fb4e1f83d9e4b05", "input": "Review: This is an excellent film about a traditional working class family in Northern England. Filmed on location in Bolton, it stars James Mason as the father who is the dominant force within his home. Or so it seems. Cleverly, the film, based on the play, portrays the complexities of family life. The supporting cast is terrific as well, with many familiar faces lending support. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51d944c883ea45fba934af6f42358bf3", "input": "Review: The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them – of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this – This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character – Hauser, the killer with a heart – exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character – tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside – and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry – to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e07a1ed3716e4874bae87b6b2d44e403", "input": "Review: O my gosh... Just give me a minute to breath. This movie takes you on an awesome ride and doesn't let you go until the very last blow in your face ending. This is the the movie for fans of Stormriders and such. Legend of Zu was beautifully created, although I didn't like a few things, they used alot of stand ins. I wanted to see the real person fight but, oh well... a few small let downs,and I didn't really like it a lot until I watched it again, when you understand it more it totally kicks A**! I encourage anyone who ever wanted to see a true Asian movie, to see this movie. I give this movie one of my highest ratings.Go and see it when it comes out in America!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5beaea9eb1254d7099f8891d99109bfc", "input": "Review: \"Gandhi as a husband and father?\" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as \"must-watch-once\". 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c98e9d8dc95437191e9aa337fb6a63c", "input": "Review: This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5e4f0fd019b44bba0551104865e98ad", "input": "Review: I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e7b793114c942ceb9eebb2ae1f03936", "input": "Review: - Contains miner spoilers - I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as \"No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead\" is of movie quality.This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5aa9331bf3734bcf88dfca0273478492", "input": "Review: I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors \"funny\" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff39f65fe60049e5a4b469e4d1a1e601", "input": "Review: This was an impulse pick up for me from the local video store. Don't make the same mistake I did. This movie is tedious, unconvincingly acted, and generally boring. The dialogue between the young priest and his uncle is particularly poorly written and delivered; I cringed at every scene they shared. Dennis Hopper makes a few sparse appearances and is his usual disjointed self; his role was clearly not a stretch for him. And although the movie is supposedly set in Puerto Rico, it feels a lot more like a Hollywood movie lot; all of the main characters are Caucasian and several tend to speak English with pseudo-Irish accents. Odd. Anyway, when you see this one on the shelf of your local video store, keep walking. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-826d7ece42cd450b93a96654dd75e47a", "input": "Review: The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.Don't waste your time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-160927dd69e84650a1d96b65e525f51d", "input": "Review: Alan Alda plays real-life \"Sports Illustrated\" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7dee001183f24012b8eb064e8aa2fbda", "input": "Review: As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame \"judging\" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94bac2ac780040369b18b1a10d5e83cb", "input": "Review: Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given \"three\" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-619747630b434376825970394f9848a5", "input": "Review: A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no \"coming of age\" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51df3bf5dce742b3be71a307de83e448", "input": "Review: They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as \"down boy\", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbe4729e34ff4dc18b9c572daf602340", "input": "Review: Linking story: another first-time viewing for me and, again, this is one of the most popular of the Amicus anthologies - and it's easy to see why, though I realize how the film's rather meaningless title could be misleading for some; I certainly fancied director Peter Duffell's choice - DEATH AND THE MAIDEN (which, incidentally, is a classical piece by Schubert that is heard in the film during the Peter Cushing episode) - a great deal more. Though the linking device itself is not all that great, the episodes are all equally compelling and enjoyable. Production values come off as very respectable indeed for the budget Duffell had to work with. The latter infuses the film with a great deal of style which is not so common with this type of film and, frankly, it makes one regret the fact that he wished to distance himself from the genre (though more so as not to be typecast rather than because he felt it was beneath him).Now to the individual stories themselves: \"Method For Murder\": the opening segment does not offer any real surprises but, to make up for this, it's quietly suspenseful and appropriately creepy at times (Tom Adams' 'fictitious' villain looking like the long-lost brother of Boris Karloff from THE OLD DARK HOUSE [1932]); also, it ends with a satisfactory DIABOLIQUE-type twist, and features a fairly intense role for Denholm Elliott in the lead. That's all we need out of it, really.\"Waxworks\": for the second story we are introduced to a curiously romantic mood which is quite unusual for this type of film; Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland are both excellent (as well as impeccably dressed) in their roles of two jilted lovers of a woman who continues to obsess them even after such a long time, and whose friendly rivalry can only lead them blindly and inexorably to a fate that is literally worse than death; an ominous hallucination scene with Peter Cushing is quite well done in view of the limited resources at hand, and Ackland's inexplicable inability - or unwillingness - to leave town somewhat recalls the house-trapped aristocrats of Bunuel's THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962).\"Sweets To The Sweet\": this is perhaps the finest episode of all - with his ambiguous role here, Christopher Lee continues to demonstrate his versatility and he is matched by an understanding Nyree Dawn Porter and the deceptive innocence of Chloe Franks (who appears as Lee's daughter). The film's treatment of the occult here is both subtle and mature, culminating in a powerful and extremely chilling 'curtain'. Trivia Note: Chloe Franks appears as a grown-up in the featurette included on the disc, and when I saw her I felt an immediate familiarity with her face but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Later, on reading her filmography, it was revealed to me that she had played one of the leads in the long-running stage adaptation of Agatha Christie's \"The Mousetrap\" in London's West End, which my brother and I were fortunate enough to catch while we there on holiday in the Summer of 2002! Needless to say, we had no idea then that she had once created such a delicate - and delicious - portrayal in sheer evil, mainly by virtue of her peculiar look and a devilish smile!! \"The Cloak\": a wacky but oddly reverent vampire tale (that still manages to debunk many of the myths attached to the subgenre, while inventing some new ones!) which takes in some wonderful digs at exploitation cinema and, at one point, Christopher Lee himself!; Jon Pertwee is marvelous as the campy horror star who gets more than he bargained for when he attempts to bring a measure of authenticity to his work; Ingrid Pitt sends up her image nicely though her role is somewhat subsidiary to the proceedings; Geoffrey Bayldon (made up to look like Ernest Thesiger) also has a memorably quirky bit; the 'silent-cinema' style of the ending was a pretty audacious one to pull on an audience, I suppose - and, while some of the humor comes off as heavy-handed a' la THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967) or THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973), it's also rather infectious and certainly ends the film on a high (and highly unusual) note! Video and audio quality are relatively satisfactory, considering I had no other version to compare it with; the main culprit is some noticeable print damage but this is never so nasty as to affect one's enjoyment of the film. As for the extras, beginning with the Audio Commentary: frankly, this is one of the finest chats about a genre film that I can remember listening to; Jonathan Rigby gets to butt in with his opinion more than is usual for a moderator but his effort certainly allows director Peter Duffell to touch on every aspect of the production (whereas with some other films, you're left rather expecting there to be more!) and, as such, it's an extremely pleasant track that complements the main feature very nicely indeed. The featurette \"A-Rated Horror Film\" is a worthwhile effort with Peter Duffell again at center-stage but this time backed up with valid, if all-too-brief, contributions from producer Max J. Rosenberg and stars Chloe Franks, Ingrid Pitt and Geoffrey Bayldon. We also get film notes, reviews, bios and a poster/stills gallery which, again, are wonderfully assembled (with the contemporary reviews being something of a novelty - and a welcome one at that). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12e8b505a0d54094a68c93e8bda2f2c5", "input": "Review: Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a874b5698f294679a70795c9315c07eb", "input": "Review: This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the \"Geeks\" amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? \"We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster.\" See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f865f9b6c61f413f82a98b76e68c3551", "input": "Review: The movie held my interest, mainly because Dianne Keaton is my favorite actress. I disagree with some of the other posts on the grounds that the plot was not convoluted. I had no trouble following it (maybe some people had too much eggnog the night before). The movie was very sad and touching as well. What more do you want? Alexa Davalos is a fine new talent (beautiful too), and Tom Everett Scott does an excellent job with his part as well. The relationship of the mother and daughter may have been a bit unrealistic, but the behavior of the young people in the movie was not. It was tragically sad but enlightening. It sure beat the other shows that were on TV New Years Day evening Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cdaf08743a8b4206954352a5e0f96249", "input": "Review: In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the \"basis\" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, \"Our Leading Citizen,\" in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than \"Jack London\"! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b475758d1304dddb2917093a6f6ee37", "input": "Review: John Huston's Wise Blood was a more horrifying misrepresentation of Flannery O'Connor's book than I could have imagined. From the utterly terrible acting performances (and don't you, \"Oh that was done on purpose, you just don't get it\" me!) to the musical score that was more suited to an episode of Rockford Files, this film was revolting. I viewed it with no ill-will at the outset, and, in fact, expected a pleasant experience. But the misrepresentation of the southern characters, from the ridiculously fraudulent southern drawl to the lilting, comedic way their faith was portrayed, was inexcusable. Right down to it's end, which was completely devoid of any character sentiment, it failed in every place that O'Connor's book shined and resonated. The actors portraying the \"southern\" policemen may as well have been eating smothered hot-dogs from NYC street stands and quoting Godfather. The one redeeming acting performance was Ned Beatty's lively and dead-on representation of Hoover Shoates, a religious con-artist who hears Moates preaching the Church of Christ Without Christ and sees dollar signs and business opportunities. O'Connor's powerful book is most well-known for it's creepy, religious undercurrent that jibes the seemingly lifeless cadaver of \"Faith\". Mr. Huston's film is a shameful mockery of the author's intentions, as they are understood by me and most of her fans, if I may be so bold as to say so. While I acknowledge that I can't know exactly what the author wished to convey, I have enough affection for her and her works to desire to remain a fan. If I viewed Wise Blood the way Mr. Huston apparently did, I would have thrown it in the trash. For Flannery's sake, and mine, I forgive you, John Huston. The forgetting....that will take some time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b1ce9c9203f4dd19de76f0d8dab3ff0", "input": "Review: Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebe7980aaea1410ab457425386a1043b", "input": "Review: This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext – just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago – and without needlessly humiliating his actors.4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9421c98244464a3abb5c462886315ceb", "input": "Review: It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3dcd180e6c274a08ac895e9d667d05ef", "input": "Review: I first saw this mini-series a number of years ago on British television and was immediately captivated by the story. This rather surprised me as I am not a great fan of either 'Jane Eyre' or 'Wuthering Heights'; I consider the heroine of the former to be a self-righteous bore, and the latter piece of work as overblown claptrap.'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', like the aforementioned works, is also somewhat depressing in parts. However, the darker parts of the film were offset by the excitement of Helen's escape, the breathtakingly wild and beautiful landscape of Yorkshire, and the sexual magnetism of Toby Stephens.This film successfully portrays the frustratingly restrictive lifestyle of all women of the time. At best they suffered from a form of minor domestic tyranny as portrayed by the treatment of the womenfolk in the Markham household. At the other end of the scale, there is the unfortunate Helen who is married to a wealthy man of high estate, but is exposed to brutality and humiliation alternating with long periods of neglect. She runs away and experiences a brief moment of freedom but, as a women of mystery living alone in a rural community, she inevitably becomes the subject of spiteful gossip and speculation.Tara Fitzgerald is excellent as the long-suffering Helen Markham. Not only incredibly beautiful (in spite of that terribly unflattering hairstyle) with the most amazing cheekbones, she is also more than capable of playing the central role in the film. Tara is dignified and aloof while, at the same time, allowing us to see that Helen is still dangerously vulnerable. Rupert Graves IS the depraved, yet curiously attractive Arthur Huntingdon - after seeing him, I could never imagine another actor playing that part. Pam Ferris deserves special mention for her role as Gilbert's indulgent mother, as does the actress who played his sister Rose, and Simon Carter who is the uncharitable vicar with a taste for the Good Things in Life. Finally, I could watch this film for Toby Stephens alone; he is so good-looking,rugged, sexy, sensitive (but not in a nauseatingly sentimental way). I am not even sure if he is a good actor as my hormones prevent me from judging him objectively!If there is a fault with the film it is the use of flashbacks which I felt both interfered with the flow of the story and made it slightly confusing. Other people, who have watched this film with me, also had problems with this, and I found I had to explain to them that certain scenes were in fact retrospective.I am extremely grateful for the people responsible for making this film. Not only did I puchase the video (a rare occurrence), but it led me to buy Anne Bronte's superb novel. Naturally, this was better than the film, but only by a narrow margin. I recommend that anyone interested should watch the film and then read the book in that order. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad2b6ba90408412098a9d7baab7fe93f", "input": "Review: When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, \"wow, finally, some entertainment.\" It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH \"playing around\" time.At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...I believe \"Good Day LA\" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's \"Today.\" ABC's \"Good Morning America\" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f89eb5c9da0461d92eca49c78b9ca2f", "input": "Review: It's rare that I sit down in front of the TV specifically to watch a particular programme. It's even rarer when I actually enjoy the programme in the end, but Last of the Blonde Bombshells was one of the best movies I think I've seen.A remarkable cast, led by Dame Judi Dench and Ian Holm, and an excellent, witty and poignant script combined to make it a truly rewarding experience. I can't really express how good I thought it was, so I won't try, I'll just say, if you get the opportunity, PLEASE SEE IT!!!! I only hope it comes out on video. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e36d51afdb9e464a89bd62724a1bd3a3", "input": "Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed \"dish\" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f21f645d01fb41ca957511b8566ef3fe", "input": "Review: Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of \"Dodge City\", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cac46b22a67d45fe8a1ca696737c253e", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing \"Return to Paradise,\" which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from \"Return to Paradise.\" Maybe I was expecting too much. On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying. I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tensionThe best thing about this film is the \"tragic\" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2004688f23614bf6b948fdcf6602d733", "input": "Review: I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. \"It's a tub of love,\" says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ca83a66d0224a73aedebab2257d839b", "input": "Review: The case is the best part of the movie but it alone is not worth the purchase price. I expected a \"Based on the true story\" movie only to find a shot on home video hodge-podge of poorly shot clips tied together with pathetic acting and non-related slaughter house scenes. The video scenes had numerous rewind situations which were used probably to extend the length of the feature rather than for effects. I started this review before I was even halfway through the movie and waited till it was over just in case it had a better ending but, low and behold it only got worse. If I could mark it any lower it would have been a negative ten. Learn from my mistake and save your money and time with this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fea85f14ef94d2b99763f63fab65b1c", "input": "Review: I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-85c1770e2a9145109a521ed43b993c81", "input": "Review: The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b25680916a1e4152882aa9ebce49e44b", "input": "Review: Several features of this film immediately date it. The sound is rather shrill and one realizes what great strides have been accomplished in sound reproduction in the ensuing years. The language of the dialogue is rather quaint and unnatural and the acting is still reminiscent of its transition from the stage techniques.Bette Davis always gives a strong performance in all her films as she does in this early period of her very successful career. I do feel however that somehow the cockney accent does not fit the facial expression. I think it is the assumed cockney accent that does not ring true for me.Somerset Maughan loves to delve into human relationships of great dramatic intensity which will please all movie-goers. As in so many of her character roles, Bette Davis can switch from a beautiful seductive woman to a viper full of fiery hatred. Leslie Howard is well cast as the withdrawn English artist with a club foot desperately seeking a partner and making a bad choice in a scheming little waitress.Towards the end of the film the young doctor meets his true love in a busy street. They cross through the traffic completely oblivious to a multitude of horns and whistles screaming at them. This scene is possibly meant to be funny, but i find it quite ridiculous in this otherwise very serious film. It is probably construed to send you home with a smile on your face. And after all as far as we can see (and hope for) it is a happy ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-489cf06e58464c189585973f7942b6e3", "input": "Review: This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.9/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62041b5c00334473a4ecdff82f7fa145", "input": "Review: Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d52ef8161fce4696a596a45612163328", "input": "Review: To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for \"musical concepts\" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, \"Norman Maine\" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer \"Vicky Lester\" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from \"Esther Blodgett\" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning \"Evergreen\" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67085cc021e64792bfe097433f895b62", "input": "Review: Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ---- Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-400a69e5db954c808c62e54f79447d11", "input": "Review: The story of Cinderella is one of my favorites from Charles Perrault, with Sleeping Beauty which was also made into a Disney film in 1959; this film is a sweet, enchanting masterpiece from Disney.The film has a great soundtrack; that's one I like in a movie is a very good soundtrack, and I love the songs too; my favorite song is the romantic \"So This is Love.\" I love the mice from the film too, they are cute. My favorite scene is the scene after the narration, the little birds tried to wake Cinderella up in the morning; I also love it when Cinderella's animal friends (the mice and birds) fix up Cinderella's birth-mother's dress, so she could go to the ball...until Drizella & Anastasia tore it to bits, the b****es! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c71726e73e5b4a3aa7e09d501145aaa0", "input": "Review: Halloween is not only the godfather of all slasher movies but the greatest horror movie ever! John Carpenter and Debra Hill created the most suspenseful, creepy, and terrifying movie of all time with this classic chiller. Michael Myers is such a phenomenal monster in this movie that he inspired scores of imitators, such as Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), The Miner (My Bloody Valentine), and Charlie Puckett (The Night Brings Charlie). Okay, so I got a little obscure there, but it just goes to show you the impact that this movie had on the entire horror genre. No longer did a monster have to come from King Tut's tomb or from Dr. Frankenstein's lab. He could be created in the cozy little neighborhoods of suburbia. And on The Night He Came Home...Haddonfield, Illinois and the viewers would never be the same. There are many aspects of this movie that make it the crowning jewel of horror movies. First is the setting...it takes place in what appears to be a normal suburban neighborhood. Many of us who grew up in an area such as this can easily identify with the characters. This is the type of neighborhood where you feel safe, but if trouble starts to brew, nobody wants to lift a finger to get involved (especially when a heavy-breathing madman is trying to skewer our young heroine.) Along with the setting, the movie takes place on Halloween!! The scariest night of the year! While most people are carving jack-o-lanterns, Michael Myers is looking to carve up some teenie-boppers. Besides the setting, there is some great acting. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job as our heroine, Laurie Strode, a goody-two-shoes high-schooler who can never seem to find a date. However, it is Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Sam Loomis, who really steals the show. His portrayal of the good doctor, who knows just what type of evil hides behind the black eyes of Michael Myers and feels compelled to send him to Hell once and for all, is the stuff of horror legend. However, it is the synthesizer score that really drives this picture as it seems to almost put the viewer into the film. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. I also enjoy the grainy feel to this picture. Nowadays, they seem to sharpen up the image of every movie, giving us every possible detail of the monster we are supposed to be afraid of. In Halloween, John Carpenter never really lets us get a complete look at Michael Myers. He always seems like he is a part of the shadows, and, I think that is what makes him so terrifying. There are many scenes where Michael is partly visible as he spies on the young teens (unbeknownst to them), which adds to his creepiness. If you think about, some wacko could be watching you right now and you wouldn't even know it. Unfortunately for our teenagers (and fortunately for us horror fans), when they find Michael, he's not looking for candy on this Halloween night..he's looking for blood. Finally, Michael Myers, himself, is a key element to this movie's effectiveness. His relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode makes him seem like the killer who will never stop. He is the bogeyman that will haunt you for the rest of your life. So,if you have not seen this movie (if there are still some of you out there who haven't, or even if you have), grab some popcorn, turn off every light, pop this into the old DVD and watch in fright. Trick or Treat! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7548cf2103e04f508170a9039a4cae45", "input": "Review: This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say \"This is THE final movie in the series...\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea7f30beb5424e079bafcda10625059e", "input": "Review: My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the \"C\" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the \"F\" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0461ff576a8b4637b227364d324b0318", "input": "Review: Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché \"there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back\" with some justification! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e75a55945724f098984c6fcecc87271", "input": "Review: I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: \"Hey, we can do that.\" For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says \"Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?\" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: \"Wow, that's incredibly cheesy.\" Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dca4d9a2626247b19654c6db687ab225", "input": "Review: Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their \"immortal soul\" can be resolved later.Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bef3a4938ee74f7e85e934dc68cbb63d", "input": "Review: I saw this movie about a week ago and still keep thinking about it. I was very moved by this movie. I found the characters very believable and likable almost to a fault. As in real life though sometimes people disappoint, as was the case with Leo, who even though I liked his character I could not have been more disappointed when he was willing to have unprotected sex even though fully aware of his HIV status. I was also disappointed with Leo for rejecting the medicine available to him, and the awful way he treated Marcel when he decided to ship him back home on the train. I think this movie showed in a very real way why HIV numbers are up in young gay men. This is in no way meant to bash gays (I am gay) and movie very well could have been made about a young straight person who makes bad choices and seems unaware of the consequences to himself and others. The only part of the movie I couldn't understand was why the (gay friendly) family was unwilling to include Marcel in Leo's illness to the point of not allowing him to go to the funeral.I think the biggest message from this movie is that whether gay or straight is DO NOT HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3796f1bfe4e14b95a743319ef7c80fc4", "input": "Review: Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of \"The Honeymooners\",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.Eddie Murphy,when he was on \"Saturday Night Live\",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of\"Saturday Night Live\".\"Eddie Murphy Delirious\"is his best stand up performance next to \"Eddie Murphy Raw\".I give \"Eddie Murphy Delirious\" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15b1dc8b7e5248c68e18cf10399437ed", "input": "Review: Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! I was appalled. Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his \"thumbs up\" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.What a pity. Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a \"free\" ticket viewing.Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.Shame shame shame on what they do!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21d1aff595b348b6ae2fcbaecb10c43e", "input": "Review: This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing \"partner\", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little \"Mary\" of the early \"Little Rascals\" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram \"B's\" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of \"nerve tonic\", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little \"B\", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bfd6a3a3e514500bbe0fb5f4a6a18ba", "input": "Review: I first saw this movie about 20 years ago and have never forgotten it. It's beautifully filmed and the story keeps one riveted for the entire time. It's difficult to believe this was made in 1946, as the tale is still fresh today, and really makes one think. I'm not very knowledgeable regarding film technique however the special effects in this film are terrific considering when this was made. In addition, the acting is superb, and the use of English and American actors quite astounding. I recently purchased the DVD so now I'm able to watch whenever I wish. I highly recommend anyone interested in post-war British films to watch this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50c6e47927804713bd82ed84c87e8740", "input": "Review: This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0440c826148470896bbb21de719d68e", "input": "Review: This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-713cf6f7506d41acbf05c75837dc2d79", "input": "Review: Fully deserving its prestigious Hollywood award nomination, this is an entertaining little gem with lots of pizazz and some delightful surprises. Outstandingly funny scenes include an hilarious shoot (and re-shoot) of a WW1 trench scene with Australian comedian Clyde Cook as an optimistic non-com and the hapless McDoakes as a Boyer/Colman messenger — all under the beady eye of Ralph Sanford's delightfully irascible Anguish; a lost McDoakes guided and re-guided by equally perplexed Jack Carson; assistant director Chandler rejoicing in a McDoakes-sent opportunity: \"I'm going to be a director!\" Ace comic O'Hanlon has a dual role, playing both McDoakes and himself playing McDoakes! Oddly, Richard L. Bare who does play himself in one or more other entries in the series, has turned down that opportunity here. In real life, Bare's a youngish, six-foot Rock Hudson lookalike, but here he's impersonated by veteran actor (over 500 movies!), Jack Mower. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6ca44dfb324443da0ab1904538474ed", "input": "Review: I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse. Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8563a53f5a142d4aa3a98619d0e2d14", "input": "Review: Master director Ching Siu Tung's perhaps most popular achievement is this series, A Chinese Ghost Story 1-3. Chinese Ghost Story stars Leslie Cheung in some distant past in China as a tax collector who is forced to spend a night during his \"collecting trip\" in a mysterious castle in which some strange old warriors fight and meet him. Beautiful actress Joey Wang/Wong is the ghost who lives in that castle and is under a domination of one powerful demon, a wood devil who collects human souls for herself/itself with the help of her beautiful ghosts. Leslie and Joey fall in love, and even though ghosts are not allowed to live with humans, they decide to break that rule and live happily together for the rest of their lives. This is not what the wood devil thinks and our protagonists have to fight for their lives and their happiness.This film is no less full of magic than other films by Ching Siu Tung. His masterpieces include Duel to the Death (1983) and the Swordsman series, which all have incredible visuals and kinetic power in their action scenes. Ghost Story is full of brilliant lightning and dark atmosphere, which is lightened by the strong presence of the beautiful and good willing ghost. The effects are simply breath taking and would work at their greatest power in the big screen. The camera is moving and twisted all the time and it adds to the fairy tale atmosphere this film has. There's plenty of wire'fu stunts, too, and even though some think they are and look gratuitous or stupid when used in films, I cannot agree and think they give motion pictures the kind of magic, freedom and creativeness any other tool could not give. When people fly in these films, it means the films are not just about our world, and they usually depict things larger than life with the power of this larger than life art form.The story about the power of love is pretty touching and warm, but the problem is (again) that the characters are little too shallow and act unexplainably occasionally. Leslie and Joey should have been written with greater care and their characters should be even more warm, deep and genuine in order to give the story a greater power and thus make the film even more noteworthy and important achievement. Also, the message about love and power of it is underlined little too much at one point and it should have been left just to the viewer's mind to be interpreted and found. Another negative point about the dialogue is that it's too plenty and people talk in this film without a reason. That is very irritating and sadly shows the flaws many scriptwriters tend to do when they write their movies. People just talk and talk and it's all there just to make everything as easy to understand as possible and so the film is not too challenging or believable as it has this gratuitous element. Just think about the films of the Japanese film maker Takeshi Kitano; his films have very little dialogue and all there is is all the necessary as he tells his things by other tools of cinema and never talks, or makes other characters talk too much in his movies. This is just the talent the writers should have in order to write greater scripts.Otherwise, Chinese Ghost Story is very beautiful and visually breath taking piece of Eastern cinema, and also the song that is played in the film is very beautiful and hopefully earned some award in the Hong Kong film awards back then. I give Chinese Ghost Story 7/10 and without the flaws mentioned above, this would without a doubt be almost perfect masterpiece of the fantasy genre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15aa618d9125415f959211fc8e9b4623", "input": "Review: ****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet \"Hobgoblins\" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as \"The Creeping Terror,\" \"The Mighty Gorga\" and \"Manos\" are uniformly bad from start to finish. \"Hobgoblins\" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept \"Club Scum\" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch \"Hobgoblins\" and wonder no longer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c45ca4d0b73b44dd8ac66b6af51abd8d", "input": "Review: I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.I was excited for the sequel to \"Wargames\" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and \"Wargames: The Dead Code\" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. \"The Dead Code\" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he \"wins\" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like \"He has expert knowledge of bio-terror\" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21bd50f5517c40778fa904a59fbe634b", "input": "Review: Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f3ba233caa34dac955d4297b4ecc03e", "input": "Review: Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the \"snake\" and run off with it into the Asian night.One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what \"love\" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's \"The Cat People\", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.Lewton also made occasional use of what he called \"buses\". Lewton's first \"bus\" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two \"buses\" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find \"The Cat People\" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a15887c143984eeba4e04774f58d9f9c", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0112c5ab321e4132b887546038ac91a6", "input": "Review: I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see!I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.A definite see! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10bc3ed763c9456f87c6caafba39b755", "input": "Review: Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed1c2c32cfc3421a996abc5bdd60896b", "input": "Review: The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody \"Prison\" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior \"The Chair,\" John Saxon's enjoyably trashy \"Death House,\" the passable psycho picture \"Destroyer,\" and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of \"Hey Micky\" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), \"Slaughterhouse rock\" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime \"Playboy\" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d8caa0c12eb485ea8280ba3056119cd", "input": "Review: What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cde87e0f75a8496eb6e329ebab8ce3ba", "input": "Review: Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f88595d0f8e64894a588dbecd2a1fbdb", "input": "Review: Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the \"regents\" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the \"right\" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-314ee254343a4cf2983c268914a2d968", "input": "Review: I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until \"poor little rich girl\" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently \"poison\" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with \"not being wanted\".....is she going to be able to handle this?I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36101c07169849bdb603557180ee76bd", "input": "Review: I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a \"missing piece\" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people \"yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!\"It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was \"lost\" AND then the \"Miranda & Ashley\" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and \"only occasionally\" used heroin!There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a \"Best Picture\" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-355f4b4317314715a2d24ea623207417", "input": "Review: This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d704b4b174b4d77acc35d91b0c76a5f", "input": "Review: A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.This is a wonderful, unsung romance.Grade: A+ Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ebd0f675c7a48f8a7618d1e5de7ecb6", "input": "Review: This film is a great example of fine storytelling. The acting is superb. The story is inspiring without being overly manipulative or fake. There were a couple points where they probably made people a tad more good or bad than they really were, but considering it is a Hollywood movie, they showed amazing restraint. There wasn't a single explosion shown in the movie, even though they had one opportunity to. The film, while having suspenseful parts, was not made into an action movie. The story is thus made to focus on an extraordinary man in unfortunately ordinary times. Well done! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1148a1660fa040ada0bd47beaedb0cfb", "input": "Review: Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-578434e34dd4425897ea50885fa55dc0", "input": "Review: Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8140f71a18f47319443813796737a9d", "input": "Review: Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b646d99034b94a68be926b548a73fc3a", "input": "Review: Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.My rating: 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a366e1e3a9f40929fd2241e0d83439c", "input": "Review: If this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17ddcaa9272a44d9b6eb4439823f0bba", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies \"from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank.\" Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his \"father\" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting \"the Ladies' Man\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5f376a4f0a54a4884fd843825dafc69", "input": "Review: I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7fad7348dae4b5db8f00ab13e40399b", "input": "Review: I just saw this at the Toronto Film Festival, and I hope it gets wide release because I want to see it again! It is a character-driven film, and Andrew and David are more than up to the task. Any discussion of the plot might beconsidered spoilers, so I'll just say that the storyline is clever, the acting is superb, and the effects are amazing. Well-filmed and well-paced too. One of the best films I have seen in ages, and very refreshing in this summer of drearymovies. It had the audience laughing the whole time. See it if you can. (I particularly liked the \"Candy bar! Candy bar!\" scene.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-98166833fd3041bf96f313f33fa76aea", "input": "Review: I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got \"Spanish Judges\" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who \"claims\" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her \"Mars Girl\". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the \"Hot Shots!\" movies. But good review.Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ca6f06bb6d349e0ae028ce42fd214dd", "input": "Review: If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the \"screen consummation\" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc8ed8c1a67b4897a72bf6ef6904501a", "input": "Review: First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't clichéd, pretty solid really.overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-20e9708ae3b041caad0364af6b2a05cc", "input": "Review: After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER. I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cd37e791a5144ac8b2b9776f884e4e1", "input": "Review: Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand (\"Wuthering Heights,\" \"Ice Station Zebra,\" \"The Thomas Crowne Affair\"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed \"The Young Girls of Rochefort,\" though I most certainly did not. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-777c268d639c4c9eb629c7d3b5801a65", "input": "Review: I didn't know the real events when I sat down to watch this, just the fact that this was based upon a true story. After the death of the kid's father, Rhonda tries to help her daughter Desiree(... I did not know anyone actually named their offspring that) cope with the loss. This is really made for children, as is often the case with \"family\" flicks(with that said, go ahead and get everyone together for a viewing, though I'd keep teenagers out of it, unless you're sure they're gonna buy the concept), but it doesn't downplay the sting that the death of a parent is, and it doesn't really talk down to anyone. The plot is sufficiently interesting, and moves along well enough. Acting varies, with the excellent Burstyn outshining most of her fellow cast, Mathis following that pretty well, and Ferland and her peers(with a few exceptions) being the least convincing of the bunch(and frankly, they're irritating; then again, I'm not really in the intended audience for this thing). The editing and cinematography are standard, and certainly not less than that. While humor is limited to a handful of amusing lines or so, the tone is not an unpleasant one. There is an intense scene or two in this. I recommend this to fans of these types of movies. 7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9572d7d24af64dfc8228acf4530a27e4", "input": "Review: AKA: Mondays In The SunI have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.I have read reviews touting the performances herein as \"wonderful,\" \"beautiful,\" and \"heroic.\" I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.It rates a ZERO/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75db381ded3d487bb242f58895acb302", "input": "Review: I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? Do we need all the \"in-jokes\" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a650d692c67a418a82b32f404324be24", "input": "Review: This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ab385277aa147ba88ec61f9075da164", "input": "Review: In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a74a0f3d092e409a9d9ff5ef482e3940", "input": "Review: Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the \"more\" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some \"humor\" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western \"serious\" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.The film is also genuinely pretty \"suspicious\" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this \"table brutality\" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how \"uncut\" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk \"Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)\" Wong!Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-89427509fdbd4177bfc1837c897842df", "input": "Review: Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place. Who greenlit this mess?I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ec78794ea0f4654ae5003a362054e0e", "input": "Review: This film is a huge steaming pile. I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa278e04e2184c7d867c0d85ace1b72c", "input": "Review: One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the \"U.S. backed, Latin American coup\", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage! The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of \"American politics\". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c2543239bf848268097ccd9baa8e131", "input": "Review: enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f8477cc91fc4eb9aaaab1ff3f52b6bc", "input": "Review: Has there ever been a movie more charming than this? One of the reasons everything works so well is that the group of actors really seem to interact and have an effect on each other's lives. The center of it is the \"romance\" of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, who work together and can't get along face to face but who completely connect with each other anonymously as pen pals. But there are also supporting characters and unlike a lot of romantic comedies (including \"You've Got Mail\", the recent update of \"Shop\") they're not just whipped up to support the two leads and their needs. Everyone gets to be an intricate part of Ernst Lubitsch's rich tapestry of charm. One of the most heartwarming scenes in movie history takes place when the near-tragic Frank Morgan casually and humbly searches for someone to have Christmas dinner with. A must see! **** out of **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a74ced97cf95440da1871e8915d703f1", "input": "Review: Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan. Not too long and not too shabby.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e02731444773422f837b198c6cf71c0a", "input": "Review: It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7456974876a04e61ab63c316784cf493", "input": "Review: John Water's (\"Pink Flamingos\"...) \"Pecker\" is the best movie I've seen in a while. It gives the viewer a surreal image of life in Baltimore (I live in nearby Washington, DC), with a Warhol-like use of color, exaggerated motions and emotions. Pecker becomes larger than his town can handle, and he is separated from his loved-ones (including a sexy Ricci) by his man-loving art manager. The picture left a refreshing taste in my mouth--kind of like a fresh strawberry ice cream on a hot summer day--and though this taste was rather flat and simplistic, it only made the whole thing more profound and critical. It is a celebration of life, liberty, and the right to bear arms...and everything else this country stands for. -Juan Pieczanski (jpieczanski@sidwell.edu) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b878714ecb5740a090a50f761a842683", "input": "Review: An average TV movie quality, totally formula story of religious fanatic (Ron Perlman, who gives good \"I'm not just the President of 'Psychos R Us,' I'm also a client.\") who gets control of a biochemical virus (think the virus from the movie \"The Rock\"). Too bad for him that he also gets stuck in a bank building during an earthquake with bank robbers and the government agents trying to stop him (led by the impressively physiqued, mildly entertaining Wolf Larson, backed by Fred Dryer) along with the standard \"in the wrong place at the wrong time\" spunky female (the forever bland Erika Eleniak) and \"lived as a wimp but died as a hero at the last minute\" male (Brandon Karrer). Has the standard background story to give sympathy to the religious fanatic (wife and son killed in a police raid a few years previous). Basically a decent rainy day movie.Favorite line, spoken by Ron Perlman after he finds the vial of the virus hidden in Erika Eleniak's cleavage: \"A woman and her mystery.\"Worth a rent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d58339030b5741cfb47fb0cf56a6d310", "input": "Review: I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0402e223ddbd43d6876b6b97a610d901", "input": "Review: Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with \"Envy\", no one could save this disaster.Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.Nick's invention, titled \"va-poo-rize\" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named \"J-man\", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tuxI say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0412f9bddcf412abc2a1c99385c7716", "input": "Review: Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-26bdbaa58541464884c56271a8eb9994", "input": "Review: Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way \"upatz.\" He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as \"media.\" He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from \"Antigone,\" which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, \"I hate her.\" She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in \"Repulsion.\" The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.Worth it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-77b589b19693494281f41146437209b3", "input": "Review: of watching this as a child. Although I'll probably find it god-awful now, it was kind-of spooky stuff as I was only seven or so. I also recall working on a Saturday-afternoon puzzle while watching it, so I wasn't really paying much attention. However, the scene with the rolling boulders has been burnt into my mind ever since. I've asked numerous people if they've seen this flick but to no avail. 12 years ago, one person mentioned that, possibly, he had seen it, but he thought it merely a dream; a fanciful piffle like wind. It's no dream, my friend. No dreaming now. Again, I haven't seen it since then, but I can't wait to find a copy and stuff it into my VCR. Anything that can stay embedded in my mind's eye for 23 years deserves a '10'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1045c3ccbac4a4485cfbe551f534600", "input": "Review: \"Hatred of a Minute\" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch. \"Hatred\" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side. \"Hatred\" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like \"Dark Tomorrow\" and \"Biker Zombies.\" Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget. However, \"Hatred\" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt. However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and \"Hatred\" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering \"Kill her! Kill em' all!\" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun. That's the place where \"Hatred\" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-849c421db1554ab1a024de42a3bf1d44", "input": "Review: The most important thing about this movie is the brilliant performance by Daniel Day-Lewis and Hugh O'Conor as Christy Brown, guineas artist and fighter who despite of her physical condition overcame all the odds. As a person who did work with patients with cerebral palsy, I can assure you that their performance were shockingly convincing. The enormous support that Christy got form his family, low-income, working class Dubliners, encouraged him to do the impossible and this picture depicted this support brilliantly have not read the book, but the dialogs were written wisely to capture Christy Brown's witty arrogant personality. I do recommend this movie to everyone, especially to classic movie-lovers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d99d5e11869e4eb98c7d8e36071206a4", "input": "Review: The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebe2489e10c944c1b3a3343e94264c4a", "input": "Review: OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbe2696a233d4e6db8f4e1afeefbad01", "input": "Review: Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71b1e397e4de4d3fb97a87b56d2eab30", "input": "Review: Four words account for why this film was made - \"She Done Him Wrong\". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6d29d537032409588227307a7fdedb4", "input": "Review: A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York \"characters\", Steve Brodie(Raft) and \"Chuck\" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the \"Main Guy\" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.Full of life and energy,\"The Bowery\" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early \"talkies\").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f93af0cce8044aaeb7cd48aac7df33ed", "input": "Review: This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch \"There's Still Something About Mary.\" I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see \"Chasing Amy\".RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM \"MYSTERY MEN\"! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d095df0dac548ebacc9a7e65eb90bb3", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-291ed69dc811421983f5309e1fc8f9c5", "input": "Review: This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.(Spoiler warning!)I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to \"play the best case for their character they could\". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f78b6f0505b74db1b1f180f1c50681e1", "input": "Review: What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.Spoiler of sorts follows.Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is \"presque rien.\" I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de8bd61c0abb46549d501985540a343b", "input": "Review: Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfee4f5760df49598e37594c8ce6df85", "input": "Review: Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.My favorite segments:14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the \"tenancier de bar\" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.84/100 (***) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50b7b1269b89499c841b6e3b81f58e4d", "input": "Review: Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like \"Saturday Night Fever\", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08435e006df5445681c0113d2a3a7960", "input": "Review: The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc29136d77fb4400a6b36242c2852ab6", "input": "Review: Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments – I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) – but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing – 2/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a63d3d2685b42029ed923601ee90796", "input": "Review: this movie is, despite its \"independent\" status, a stupid hollywood version of a nauseating mother-daughter relationship. it wasnt that bad at first, but somewhere during the course of the movie--around the time that the daughter goes out with that guy, i think--it turns into a cheesey mother-daughter bonding movie. im sorry, but i dont know of any mothers who have that kind of relationship with their daughter...its probably better that way, though. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69a4ccd6b48f4f68ad611eea1d862172", "input": "Review: While flipping through the channels on a late Saturday night, my friends and I stumbled across this film. First of all, Irish actor Pierce Brosnan as a Native American? Seriously?! His accent was breaking through so much, although his character was apparently Scottish. Next, I was stunned to find that this film was made after he had already played James Bond/Agent 007 at least twice. This movie plays up the stereotypes, with the inspiring professor figure. The girl who played Pony should be paid to keep her mouth shut. And, this film won an award? I cannot believe it. Brosnan is an attractive man, but we seriously wanted to gauge our eyes out after watching this for just 10 seconds. We switched from \"Kicking and Screaming\" to this, and we wanted to switch back. We watched the 1995 children's classic \"The Indian in the Cupboard\" earlier in the night, which also discussed the Iroquois. The following line represents our desire to run away: \"Take me outside, earth grasper.\" From \"Grey Owl\": \"If you don't like it, you don't have to watch.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9071b14375d741dd9d05c24048aa5acf", "input": "Review: . . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of \"10.\" After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bf72c1ec3cf4bf4abc2a7618dbc323f", "input": "Review: what is wrong with you people, if you weren't blown away by the action car sequences and jessica Simpsons hot body then you are majorly screwed in the head. Of course the film isn't a masterpiece, i don't think it was aiming to be. It was fun and funny, i never watched the show when i was younger, i only recently saw one episode, and when i watched the movie, i felt it had the same kind of atmosphere. The movie seats were practically shaking, and the car sequences were good because it didn't bore me and drag out like some of the scenes in 2fast 2furious. and jessica Simpson is plain hot, i just wish they had used her more in the action sequences. All in all, i had a hell of a time watching this and i would go and see it again soon and i will buy it on DVD. People, enjoy it for what it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1d4072a942a4a5ab7ef27a636b1d380", "input": "Review: Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d3e56d3ce424a6da4995bb30ed9747c", "input": "Review: A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dda5b9118eb74ff2bb0420e894502ab2", "input": "Review: The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24dc8b2b1fdc4cf58d2511c4206342e8", "input": "Review: I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-80e060f9da9244fd825a51c065c23291", "input": "Review: I love this film 'Spring and port wine'. I was born in Leigh, a town about 7 miles away from Bolton, I moved to Bolton in 1965 when I was 20. My place of work was daily via Little Lever through Farnworth, sometimes on a bike but then by car when I could afford it.The film brings back all the memories of the working class neighbors who were almost always broke but who would always help you if they could. Fred Dibnah was round the corner from Bromwich St. were my bedsit was. If you didn't see the film when first released then you may be forgiven for comparing it to a soap such as Coronation St, well I agree it is a soap, but then, it was called 'Kitchen Sink Drama!' Watch this film for the talented cast who shortly afterwards became household names from frequent roles on TV, I watch mainly for the shots of the locality and the feel good factor of people being poor but happy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-283b9b07365d442ab0f03e7ca6fdb5eb", "input": "Review: I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.rating: 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14596d08a30c4aa68a50f1ff46967ec7", "input": "Review: A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-818b9d20ab0d40a8994b071149e24d62", "input": "Review: I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-780213156205414c946c831fc6e81703", "input": "Review: Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle \"Hutch\" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings. He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-599689a98c6348dabb3024fe56c89df2", "input": "Review: As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their \"missions\" to family outings, all leading up the big day \"Zero Day\" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers \"psychopaths\" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-edbecbd0a35640d79b9654b5204cf2fa", "input": "Review: This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the \"special effects\" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a122fbbceaa4bca831782df888f225f", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to \"protect\" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). \"Offside\" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).\"Offside\" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films (\"The Shop on Main Street,\" \"Loves of a Blonde,\" \"Closely Watched Trains\" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the \"Prague Miracle\" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, \"Offside\" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a \"point.\" They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in \"real time.\" Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. \"Offside\" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, \"Offside\" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d3dc049bbf24412b648488d4094e784", "input": "Review: I was speechless and devastated after my first viewing of this - many parts of GREY GARDENS are very funny and unbelievably surreal - documentary of not, this really gives Fellini or David Lynch a run for their money in the weirdsville sweepstakes. I kept focusing on how these women (who are clinically way beyond eccentric) reveal their own humanity in the most surprising of ways, and I wonder whether their retreat from the world was prompted by something beyond the stuffiness of life in the unreal blue-blood universe, perhaps some abuse, or perhaps simply a streak of defiance and rebellion that spiralled out of their control and took on a life of its' own. This might be one of the greatest ever films that comes dangerously close to exploitation, without going completely over the edge - as the Edies do their thing, I kept noting things like the empty gin bottles in the rubble-strewn bedroom, cats urinating on the bed, racoons emerging from holes in the walls, and the final scene seemed incredibly sad - like a child's birthday party gone seriously wrong. Very definitely worth seeing and seeking out - you'll never forget it, but very disturbing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d57061a395a84a70a54fea04ca93110f", "input": "Review: While it certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, it was certainly worth the $8 (which can't be said for many movies these days.)This was a pleasant account of a true story, although many of the details of the real story were twisted for the movie, (ie, Billy Sunday's character was three or four people in the real story combined together.) Robert DeNiro was of course good, and Cuba Gooding, Jr., was also impressive. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e989d93afdd4d0c809faf00dbe3863e", "input": "Review: I saw \"Paris Je T'Aime\" because a friend really wanted to see it so I went along with him. Going in, I was indifferent about the film but leaving the theater I really regretted wasting 2 hours of my life sitting through this tepid production. The \"stories\" are almost completely forgettable except for the fact that most of them were awful. What do Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara have to do with Paris? The endless parade of American actors most definitely gave this French film a remarkably non-French feel. The clichés about Paris were endless. Yes, most of them were playing with clichés about Paris but by spending so much time making fun of French clichés, they directly and regrettably promoted them once more. Yes, Paris is the city of love. We get it.The worst segments were: the one directed by Wes Craven (Oscar Wilde); the one with Nick Nolte; the mime one (the worst?); the hair products one; the one with Juliette Binoche (Willem Dafoe as a cowboy in the middle of Paris?); the vampire one (When I think of Paris I think of Elijah Wood). The one with Natalie Portman, which really looked like a Mentos commercial and it was stupid (the blind young man should know Portman was just playing a part when she called him). On and on it went. It felt endless.I didn't like the Coen Bros one as well. It really plays with those Parisien clichés but I didn't find it funny. Just annoying. The Gus Van Sant one was interesting but it was so slight (and the punchline was obvious) that it barely registered.There were only two \"successful\" segments and they were the one about the immigrant nanny who leaves her baby at a kindergarten only to babysit a baby for a rich woman. Nice irony there. And the segment about the African who is stabbed. It's the best segment in the whole film but this segment has nothing to do with Paris. The story could have taken place in any city around the world.The last segment, the one with the chubby middle aged woman was sorta interesting too but the underlying tone was bad. They wanted to celebrate her limited grasp of French but the segment came off as being condescending.The whole project felt forced and uninspired. Almost like the French government sponsored this film to promote tourism. All in all, with only about 10 to 15 minutes of interesting stuff, \"Paris Je T'Aime\" was an awful cinematic experience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5049351456244cf1aa48e390b0864642", "input": "Review: Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18bc2db867894a21b693d7ae6cd52004", "input": "Review: It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-692a80a2859b455b94c983e1aeaa82f1", "input": "Review: I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ef7a4d1e05b480db031ef59f5a16af2", "input": "Review: I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-550d2780a4cb4e5ab39e205e520d7621", "input": "Review: Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-607d6ed0502f4428b5643bbe46a3cd48", "input": "Review: ***Possible Spoilers***When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes \"whole\".4/10 Movie-Man Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f558c0f69bb4bb5970ba81c451e844f", "input": "Review: Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.Score: 2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5662946e63943d388e8dfb1909ec2da", "input": "Review: I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets \"great performances\" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b8ce6da912b4ca8a669513402ef80cd", "input": "Review: This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting \"comedy\" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e900ed11a8324f7eb1e2a62ce4c413ab", "input": "Review: Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a2a9512d73e4e65a190374e1db9dc46", "input": "Review: How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-339141ea01d840fcbc961ec19cd45ebf", "input": "Review: Special effects? Good.Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack \"savior\" figure.Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d92243fa8544eac9f364b44d3ac2c2c", "input": "Review: \"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain\" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. \"Legend of Zu\" is connected to \"Zu\"warriors from magic mountain\"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like \"Superman Returns\" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. \"Legend of Zu\" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6bfeabd4c1d14babb550d45386bd3b81", "input": "Review: Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-749ae64bf968493fa88f3a0b59a04446", "input": "Review: Yes, I loved this movie when I was a kid. When I was growing up I saw this movie so many times that my dad had to buy another VHS copy because the old copy had worn out.My family received a VHS copy of this movie when we purchased a new VHS system. At first, my mom wasn't sure that this was an appropriate movie for a 10 year old but because we had just bought a new VHS system she let me watch it.Like I said, this movie is every little boys dream… The movie contains a terrific setting, big muscled barbarians, beautiful topless women, big bad monsters and jokes you'll only get when you get older. So, a couple of days ago I inserted the video and watched the movie again after a long time. At first, I was bored, then started thinking about how much I loved this movie when I was kid, and continued watching. Yeah, the experience wasn't as great as I remembered… The acting is pretty bad, the storyline is pretty bad, the jokes weren't funny anymore, but the women were still pretty. Yes, I've grown up. Even though the movie experience has changed for me, I still think it's worth 7 stars. For the good old times you know… Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cdf57e1fd1641558947feb420488557", "input": "Review: As a community theater actor who works hard at it but doesn't take acting too seriously, I'm always amused by those who treat it as Great Art. This movie skewers the \"Actor's Craft\" mercilessly while dishing up a lot of good laughs.A ham actor on location for a movie bears a resemblance to the dictator. When the dictator dies of a heart attack from too much drink and food, the actor is kidnapped and forced to play \"the part of a lifetime\" by the neo-Nazi head of the secret service. He plays it to the hilt, gets the dictator's girlfriend to fall in love with him and vice versa, and turns the tables on his captors beautifully.Lots of great shtick by the leads, lots of good work by some unknown supporting actors, particularly the household staff and two members of the palace guard, and fun little cameos abound. Sammy Davis Jr. makes light of himself, Jonathan Winters plays a semi-retired American businessman with something else going on, and Raul Julia, Sonia Braga, and above all Richard Dreyfuss are exceptional.This is a dumb movie, but it has lots of beautiful locations (in Brazil), a humorous script, and good actors doing their thing and looking like they're actually having fun and not going through the usual existential angst about what is only play-acting! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-feef8c0361954c979e59f96d95ff2a58", "input": "Review: This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, \"yes\" or \"no\" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38d31b3507654963af9b43c31bfef9b5", "input": "Review: Really an amazing pile of pap! A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary.The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.Never, ever, ever again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-252df4455daa4ea1b51edc934adeec5d", "input": "Review: With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-340f4c36a1de4c4b88608f3208f4ecd3", "input": "Review: What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. \"Right to Die\" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.Spoilers here: Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great \"aloof\" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.End of Spoiler.As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, \"Right to Die\" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-049a08910e1545749a9f4dc9940d5897", "input": "Review: Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2f22b1f44024cd5ad8a4f1a9f24551e", "input": "Review: This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV ! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a087cb1c0ed4b3b97f0a6ca3111dd1d", "input": "Review: Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the \"idealistic youths\" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d3b073bb96d140a8ac5abd3c3b998953", "input": "Review: Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about \"zombies\" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The \"zombies\" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.The film is set during World War I. A \"French Cambodian\" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to \"wipe out the white race\".One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean \"will to power\"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusing—Halperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f086b4bccae4c2f8e5c1c4af59c235a", "input": "Review: A woman (Sylvia Kristel) seduces a 15 year old boy (Eric Brown). They have sex...but it's all tied into some stupid plot or something.Easily one of the most disturbing sex comedies ever. Does anyone realize this movie is making light of child molestation? I suppose it's OK cause it's a teenage boy--if we had one with a man seducing a teenage girl there would (rightfully) be outrage. Sorry, but having it done to a boy doesn't excuse it. It's still sick. I realize Brown was of age (he was actually 18 when this was made) but he LOOKS 15. I just find it disturbing that some people find this OK.Plot aside the acting sucks (Kristel is beautiful--but can't act; Brown is easily one of the worst child actors I've ever seen) and the constant nudity gets boring and isn't even remotely erotic.I saw this drivel at a theatre back in 1981. I was 19 and with my 14 year old cousin (who could easily pass for 18). HE wanted to see it--I didn't but I decideD what the heck? We got in and I actually bought tickets for three teenage boys who were obviously underage. My cousin thought is was boring and the three other kids left halfway through! Let me make this clear--three TEENAGE BOYS left a movie with tons of female nudity! That should give you an idea of how bad this is. I'm surprised this was ever released. A 1 all the way. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4032c7ef6889454e9194d0468e947e6f", "input": "Review: Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de95d1c81ec344f489984c12ba87f06f", "input": "Review: Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is fun—it is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. \"Arzenta\" is an unpretentious ,yet very likable film—much better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth. I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.The score is very fine, with a good introductory song—making felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).\"Arzenta\" is interestingly filmed—an ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-329fb7d04fa7430981cef37dbef82010", "input": "Review: Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,\"Paulie\". I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into \"Born In East L.A.\" When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves. While Cheech Marin's character \"is\" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion. 8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08f960f4b4974ea395e6793191e5bac6", "input": "Review: This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later). As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations – a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information – Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them \"outer space action figures\") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again – we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film – particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects – even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads – Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence – a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful – it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film – subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all – that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play – maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all…(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a33dd82c75034eb09917b51a256532cf", "input": "Review: Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f1d26b9110545cf9c732c5d6e3b83fc", "input": "Review: A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 \"full-length\" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8453b037d1d486faacefe6f29710bb9", "input": "Review: Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the \"He did it\" zone.There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc547aae962b440485ed9ab62a7a549c", "input": "Review: If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a17d1be062248ceb4f8e520a60c714d", "input": "Review: Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cd92fd6b0d04813831845bb15610e06", "input": "Review: You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's \"Capturing the Friedmans\" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's \"Forbidden Lie$.\" It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of \"Honor Lost,\" the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this \"exposure\" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no \"happy ending\" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c71c62aca697492393bd81581127da12", "input": "Review: Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is mostfamous for \"Zombie,\" and the absolutely unwatchable \"ThePsychic\" and \"Manhattan Baby.\" Well, add this to the unwatchablelist.The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a goldmask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbedstud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magicbecause they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flataction sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but notbefore taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up withmy high school girlfriend.Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen withsmoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make youcrave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects arelaughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo areattacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches onthe film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have beenspent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurtingwounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in awhile, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anywayjust to see what the heck was happening.There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let medo a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does notappear in the film in any context whatsoever. \"Conquest\" is a conjob. What MST3K could have done with this!This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, femalenudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e097924d5de44b69b1d7410e4745c2d", "input": "Review: This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite \"High Flight\" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9f47cfdd63142368a6eda1eb9de357a", "input": "Review: Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-847896e33b95468c886067797c2b4d8e", "input": "Review: First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look \"real\" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for \"reality\" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream \"genius\" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.What a sad waste. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06243a3871a3474ea8ab4c060139ad90", "input": "Review: Still the definitive program about the Second World War, The World At War isn't just long, but also very informative. The series contains 26 episodes (each episode lasts for about 45 min.), and includes the events leading up to and following in the wake of the war. Most episodes are about the war in Europe, and there are several episodes about the war in the Pacific. Other episodes include information about the wars in Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and the home fronts of Germany, Great Britain, United States and Soviet Union. There is one episode that's dedicated to the Holocaust. The series starts off with the episode A New Germany (1933-1939), and tells about the rise of the Nazis in Germany and German territorial gains prior to the outbreak of war. The series ends with the episode Remember; the war's influence in a post-war world. Remember is a fitting episode to end this great program. Every episode begins with a short introduction and then with opening credits. The credits are accompanied by a powerful music theme. There are many fitting music pieces throughout the series. Each episode is like a mini-film. The footage is fantastic, and so is the way it was put together. In addition, some of the footage is in color. The information included also makes the episodes memorable and entertaining.The series was produced by Jeremy Isaacs for Thames Television (UK). Commissioned in 1969, it took four years to produce, such was the depth of its research. The series was narrated by Laurence Olivier (one of the most famous and revered actors of the 20th century). The series interviewed leading members of the Allied and Axis campaigns, including eyewitness accounts by civilians, enlisted men, officers and politicians, amongst them Albert Speer, Karl Donitz, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Mauldin, Curtis LeMay, Lord Mountbatten, Alger Hiss, Toshikazu Kase, Arthur Harris, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, Traudl Junge and historian Stephen Ambrose. Jeremy Isaacs says in \"The Making of The World at War\" that he sought to interview, not necessarily the surviving big names, but their aides and assistants. The most difficult subject to locate and persuade to be interviewed, according to Isaacs, was Heinrich Himmler's adjutant, Karl Wolff. The latter admitted to witnessing a large-scale execution in Himmler's presence.The World At War is often considered to be the definitive television history of the Second World War. Some consider it the finest example of the documentary form. In a list of the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes drawn up by the British Film Institute in 2000, voted for by industry professionals, The World at War ranked 19th. The program has everything that the viewer needs to know about the war. After watching a few episodes I liked the series so much that I tried to watch the remaining episodes one after the other. I've seen some of them several times. There are two other great documentary series that I know of that may be of interest to the viewer. One is called The Great War (1964) that's about World War I. The other is called Cold War (1998) that's about the Cold War obviously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f10a75edd554d4bb356e8473814da25", "input": "Review: If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.Wu Du it!9 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-60fb54fbd3cd46b0a2908026115188ff", "input": "Review: After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display My Grade: D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a528c2a9718465ab477f49561bb20ae", "input": "Review: I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-25cec81b0c7b4491b0acbdf45d22239c", "input": "Review: This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there \"prophecy\" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new \"worst ever\" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend \"Cyborg\" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out \"Nemesis\".I rated this movie 1/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d31791965e674de2bca7ffc0d6667769", "input": "Review: Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties. How could that happen? What drove me into addiction? OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce. Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in \"Love Actually\", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is. Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing \"All Over The World\", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage. It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there. Got Still Crazy... anyone? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e607c52bcf34ed89c4162586826ea99", "input": "Review: I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eade9e9ada4844e28c1093bf597fa57e", "input": "Review: First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9090bc314abd47fd8f990e882e741044", "input": "Review: It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be11d609f45542ec9cf892dd3d0aff03", "input": "Review: Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b98322bdb95f4278915d082ebbdfe2db", "input": "Review: For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. -Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18f6e768a398496d800bcb3a59890c7d", "input": "Review: Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how \"mob rule\" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this \"Cry\" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30da7dc2bf314e48ade73910e4cce4de", "input": "Review: \"Secret of the Lens\" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.Check this out.WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-14652037b844459f9898af46ee3c9fb5", "input": "Review: As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). > Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d707cf7e7d6845f68c58c13b6019e368", "input": "Review: Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a01417733354d9bbca4f3150a2821ff", "input": "Review: Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6418328b4454187ad28c5a42748d372", "input": "Review: We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide \"Infomercials\" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41f6911516f64a2788ac2f3e80fe0c6f", "input": "Review: Cosimo (Luis Guzman) ends up in prison for car burglary and there he's given the plan for the perfect heist from a lifer in prison; so he has to get out of jail, fast. He tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) to find a man who will do his time in prison for some money. But no one wants to do the time for Cosimo's crime and yet everybody seems to know a guy who will do that. Soon bad boxer Pero Mahalovic (Sam Rockwell) founds out the details of this so called \"perfect job\".First of all, I think this movie was very funny and from my point of view I would recommend it to everyone. This movie is remake of Italian comedy \"I Soliti Ignoti\". I didn't watch the Italian original so I cannot judge or compare those two movies. But \"Welcome to Collinwood\" is great comedy for itself, about four people trying to rob the money from the vault in one house. Everyone gave their part of brilliance from this movie cast. Really excellent movie for these actors: Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy (great), Isaiah Washington, Michael Jeter (great), Luis Guzmán, Patricia Clarkson, Jennifer Esposito and finally George Clooney gave their share in this project. Maybe to say that this movie is only comedy, isn't fair. This is more then that. Because of one difference. All of thieves in this movie have very small wishes when they are asked: what will they do with their money? It is mostly securing their future in very humble way. This fact goes beyond comedy into the soul of that criminals. And not only them but also cop Babitch, who is presented like corrupted one; so here directors Russo presents us fact that criminals and cop are the same. Actually all in Collinwood are; and not only in Collinwood, cause all people chase money, on legal or illegal way. I don't like all movies were audience eventually likes and cheers for thieves. But, this one is exception. You have to love them all. Riley with his little baby and wife in jail. Toto with his pants. Cosimo with his line: \"Your mother's a whore!\" and all others. They are just like characters in my favorite comic, Alan Ford. They all trying to make some money, but simply they are out of luck. But they all did one good deed: they gave money to Riley, so he can get his wife out of prison. They are all heroes in my eyes, cause lots of \"honest\" people wouldn't do that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf199044b1e7402582db8f84b8508132", "input": "Review: Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70a60f8201a24ac88a345ceffbddd546", "input": "Review: Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance byTom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his \"look\" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. It rates a 3.2/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85d2ed15c6ef4212b455558ec817a3cd", "input": "Review: Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccd75be0a8a04cb3ae03916328499c52", "input": "Review: This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3818488b8f0b4bc1913c912ea566fcab", "input": "Review: The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13a26e1480c04bf0b861048c581a1644", "input": "Review: Vertigo co-stars Stewart (in his last turn as a romantic lead) and Novak elevate this, Stewart's other \"Christmas movie,\" movie to above mid-level entertainment. The chemistry between the two stars makes for a fairly moving experience and further revelation can be gleaned from the movie if witchcraft is seen as a metaphor for the private pain that hampers many people's relationships. All in all, a nice diversion with legendary stars, 7/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0acbadfb1f7d41a9a475213bb31e9d29", "input": "Review: OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun… even the mush had good dialogue.Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-07b211d722934bedb0f350fb7199ee5e", "input": "Review: This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or \"enhance\", the more slobbery they get. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6d0edd7ca6c4e119a2732e1bb549267", "input": "Review: This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-37f4e4ec5b4340d68b7194615d898198", "input": "Review: I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented \"Love Story\" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-afdf56ccf7af46b389e57e98a21f3630", "input": "Review: Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4bce5e0431fb4286bf81fa3fe05bb6da", "input": "Review: Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the \"actors\" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the \"film\", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The \"special effects\" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this \"film\" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-607aae74c1eb48e8964df78345456db8", "input": "Review: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8OZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, \"The Projected Man\", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.Ooops, sorry. Yes, \"The Projected Man\". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, \"The Projected Man\" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for \"The Projected Man\":ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d9a2d00fdf346548f39326c365eb18e", "input": "Review: Both visually and musically stunning. A treat for both the eye and the ear. The quintessential Victorian element of the opening sequences were completely enchanting, helping to create a Christmas scene of which Dickens himself would have been justifiably proud. Technically the production is visually stimulating and the special effects are both imaginatively devised and creatively achieved in a traditional stage setting. The dancing of many of the lead artistes is breathtakingly good. The photography and lighting are first class and the sound recording admirably matches the overall high level of technical skills employed. A great film for all the family at Christmas time and a most delightful discovery which will withstand multiple viewing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1066eb061121402987034ff4e2e8f757", "input": "Review: This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92a5fd2e58d84103b5f9ecdbd7dfa801", "input": "Review: I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this \"War of the Worlds\", lets name this \"War of the Walking Long Distances\". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or moneyI know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!! I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7a9cfd0ee2948818cd9cadf394596a9", "input": "Review: \"The Domino Principle\" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream \"I give up!!!\"How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.I hope they spent their money well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cbddade107f457a822a007e446e3c40", "input": "Review: This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about \"blood surfing\". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e43c582054bd4fa1b0294058fcfd7dab", "input": "Review: I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie \"experience\" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a4ccf44a4a14327972d11dffa727ca3", "input": "Review: *some spoilers*I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like \"It's a Wonderful life,\" this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c97301844a774c6d860c2c0f9b5a344f", "input": "Review: Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, \"Foxes\" really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did \"Taxi Driver\" four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on \"Happy Days\". He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e56cba0a0564443a412ce3a3b519a91", "input": "Review: No rubbish - no where even near rubbish. Not an original? thats the last thing that could be said of \"2.4 children\".Predictable? certainly not! Although it was somewhat an unusual series for the BBC, it was hilarious, funny, and witty. I particularly liked Belinda Lang and John Pickard - who I believe preformed wonderfully.Gary olsen was also very good and so were all the other cast members..I never quite new why it was can-celled till reading here today about Gary Olsen's death at a relatively young age. I do wish that they would make more of comedy of this type, much more of them (and show them here in Israel).Thumbs way up! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42e90e47bda34f28ba9abe4d5586cd4b", "input": "Review: I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10! The final episode of the 10th season \"Unending\", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief! From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the \"apparent\" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4bdb61c108549a89c8a63bc268f6519", "input": "Review: A trio of buddies, sergeants all in the British Army, carouse & brawl their way across Imperial India. Intensely loyal to each other, they meet their greatest & most deadly challenge when they encounter the resurgence of a hideous cult & its demented, implacable guru. Now they must rely on the lowliest servant of the regiment, the water carrier GUNGA DIN, to save scores of the Queen's soldiers from certain massacre.Based more on The Three Musketeers than Kipling's classic poem, this is a wonderful adventure epic - a worthy entry in Hollywood's Golden Year of 1939. Filled with suspense & humor, while keeping the romantic interludes to the barest minimum, it grips the interest of the viewer and holds it right up to the (sentimental) conclusion.It is practically fruitless to discuss the performance nuances of the three stars, Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen & Douglas Fairbanks Jr., as they are really all thirds of a single organism - inseparable and, to all intents & purposes, indistinguishable. However, this diminishes nothing of the great fun in simply watching them have a glorious time.(It's interesting to note, parenthetically, that McLaglen boasted of a distinguished World War One military career; Fairbanks would have a sterling record in World War Two - mostly in clandestine affairs & earning himself no fewer than 4 honorary knighthoods after the conflict; while Grant reportedly worked undercover for British Intelligence, keeping an eye on Hollywood Nazi sympathizers.)The real acting laurels here should go to Sam Jaffe, heartbreaking in the title role. He infuses the humble man with radiant dignity & enormous courage, making the last line of Kipling's poem ring true. He is unforgettable.Montague Love is properly stalwart as the regimental major, whilst Eduardo Ciannelli is Evil Incarnate as the Thuggee guru. The rest of the cast, Joan Fontaine, Robert Coote, Lumsden Hare, are effective but have little to do. Movie mavens will recognize Cecil Kellaway in the tiny role of Miss Fontaine's father.The film picks its villains well. The demonic Thuggee cult, worshipers of the hideous, blood-soaked Kali, Hindu goddess of destruction, was the bane of Indian life for 6 centuries, ritualistically strangling up to 30,000 victims a year. In 1840 the British military, in cooperation with a number of princely states, succeeded in ultimately suppressing the religion. Henceforth it would remain the stuff of novels & nightmares. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-927f74c45aed4eb6bec6f14cbb2f8fe5", "input": "Review: Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.\"Wilder Napalm\" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics. Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire! Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. \"Wilder Napalm\" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.Give this one a look... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e933830136f74d8cb6a95e2637d156e1", "input": "Review: At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some \"repertoire\" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0c4b4ed1c4b4d1d9bcb8e6b288de085", "input": "Review: Human Body --- WoW.There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....Our days are limited...Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...Thanks and Regards. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2868f9131170410c9634abd063b7ba41", "input": "Review: Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e6b3d0c24f74106a14b0745b82c0466", "input": "Review: First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a \"girl\"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the \"bad guys\" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the \"African American\" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing \"I'll Be Home For Christmas\" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff0bf9f577ca4855be56c42a8d85a37c", "input": "Review: You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as \"Special Guest Star.\" Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the \"Partridge Family\" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for \"Charlie's Angels.\" As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their \"range.\" Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7925c48c43d46de99979dcc8eff53ae", "input": "Review: I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.Highly recommended series, i want more!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69354100a22340bb9304437eec54aa9a", "input": "Review: I find this movie the best movie I have ever seen, because it reflects the inner strength of a young girl during the second world war. The movie is impressive, not least because it actually happened. It reminds me of the story of Anne Frank. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01977ea6e16c464983ba041413618302", "input": "Review: The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc99cdd459d54bc6bcd4968be6f9650f", "input": "Review: the cover of the box makes this movie look really good, don't be fooled. splatter university came out in 1984 which was the last good year for horror, but this movie sucks. the characters are so annoying. only the teacher is cool. there is like no plot to this movie, who the hell would ever produce this waste of a film?spoilers up aheadthe teacher dies in this, and it was a female, we all know that we must have a female surviver, if you're going to break the rules do it in a good horror flick not this waste Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c699682ba45149b59ced8eb0b69f5eb6", "input": "Review: This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a66355d531940cb912d045ad7bf6000", "input": "Review: If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4640cb0217245c98c3b63af29c1d5d8", "input": "Review: If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. I loved every minute of it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78ff7f525e664470b3445c2f9d422997", "input": "Review: I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the \"films\" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is \"good enough\" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think \"At least I accomplished SOMETHING\" or \"Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself\". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment \"the worst movie ever made\".Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think \"I can do better than THAT\" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5ded35507fd424194cb31d8d27c4719", "input": "Review: i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like \"Cats\" .... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2484723cc1f84b8188968160a065e951", "input": "Review: This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb5be8660ae749bd8b122edf2b49971c", "input": "Review: I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a \"Master\" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called \"Wrong Turn\" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with \"Right to Die\" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the \"Masters of Horror\" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with \"The Fair Haired Child\" even though his other long feature films \"Fear Dot Com\" and \"House on Haunted Hill\" sucked pretty badly.The story of \"Right to Die\" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of \"The Dentist\") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. \"Right to Die\" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like \"Masters of Horror\". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great \"MoH\" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d46c46214744c18e5fb1bd9cdeeb3b", "input": "Review: This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said \"let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed\". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e501f55eda624a23af6c18a2d7df2c53", "input": "Review: This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fe12a4ec1d14963afadedeafbe63c5f", "input": "Review: Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b478c11f6ea34909ae2f80b66479e294", "input": "Review: This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c82ffad4d2ff4cfd96fb58ce76526aaf", "input": "Review: This is one of the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffb407583af14f5fb0dd8cfe5bc62b07", "input": "Review: The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2a7baaf99584be99b16b092a63eaa9e", "input": "Review: A typical romp through Cheech and Chong's reality which includes drugs, singing, more drugs, cars and driving, even more drugs, Pee Wee, aliens, gasoline, laundry, stand up comedy, surprisingly more drugs and SPACE COKE !!. It is not as coherent or plausible as Up in Smoke but it still is incredibly funny, without becoming as strange as Nice Dreams. There are some classic scenes, which include the opening scene where they get some gas for their car and the drive to work. Also funny is Cheech's song (Mexican-Americans) and Chong's follow up song. Another notable scene is the welfare office scene with Jones (human noise machine), from the Police Academy series, and the old laughing man. All in all, this is a great follow up to Up in Smoke and is quite watchable when sober or not.-Celluloid Rehab Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eae3ac61fcad4bc5b6cbfea9b000293e", "input": "Review: When I first heard that Hal Hartley was doing a sequel to Henry Fool, I was excited (it's been a personal favorite for years now), and then wary when I heard it had something to do with terrorism. Having just seen it though, I was surprised to find that it worked, while still being an entirely different sort of movie than Henry Fool. The writing and direction were both dead on and the acting was superb...especial kudos go to Hartley for reassembling virtually the whole cast, right down to Henry's son, who was only four in the original. Like I said though, this movie is quite different from the first, but it works: I reconciled myself with the change in tone and subject matter to the fact that 10 years have passed and the characters would have found themselves in very different situations since the first film ended. In this case, an unexpected adventure ensues...and that's about all I'll give away...not to mention the fact that I'll need to see it again to really understand what's going on and who's double crossing who. While it was certainly one of the better movies I've seen in some time, it suffers like many sequels with its ending, as it appears that Hartley is planning a third now and the film leaves you hanging. I'll be sure to buy my tickets for part 3 ('Henry Grim'?) in 2017. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7cb6e69245e43218d77c4615bdaef0c", "input": "Review: I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e2528f651d746e893853673149764bb", "input": "Review: You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's \"Capturing the Friedmans\" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's \"Forbidden Lie$.\" It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of \"Honor Lost,\" the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this \"exposure\" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no \"happy ending\" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a321627711745d48a43e4e99f580f50", "input": "Review: Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.My rating: 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d52df337cad44409928f44488a72159", "input": "Review: This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7200b6debe39499bb90f6aa2a782efc6", "input": "Review: When great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter. That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b718dbbe69e448debde61c3b8b89fc73", "input": "Review: A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The \"What the hell am I doing here with this idiot\" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b81887a5f3364fabb87aaab2046fcce6", "input": "Review: Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3014dadb56b04e689d6047b9f5f1a2b6", "input": "Review: Yes, this gets the full ten stars. It's plain as day that this fill is genius. The universe sent Trent Harris a young, wonderfully strange man one day and Harris caught him on tape, in all that true misfit glory that you just can't fake. Too bad it ended in tragedy for the young man, if only an alternate ending could be written for that fellow's story. The other two steps in the trilogy do retell the story, with Sean Penn and Crispin Glover in the roles of the young men, respectively. The world is expanded upon and the strangeness is contextualized by the retelling, giving us a broader glimpse into growing up weird in vanilla America. Recommended for anyone and everyone! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9c6bef619054a6e99edd10b42a51b1f", "input": "Review: Great movie when I saw it. Have to say one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it like 8 times in the theater and got the DVD. As I got older and saw it again I realized that the movie is average. Compared to movies that are known ad good comedys, this is nothing. I mean Rock was hilarious in the movie and the whole switching with the racial stuff breaks a little barriers which is great. Also the thought of how the movie goes is a nice way of thinking. It's like most thought of a movie but also a little twist which is a very nice touch. I like the movie overall so i give it a...Still a good 7/10 for me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae54988d777e4cf992640e1a9f5b7fe7", "input": "Review: An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW – two men trapped in room and pitting against each other – but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e0f45e89cf14f258b9c3a2fc109a8f8", "input": "Review: This is an awful film. Yea the girls are pretty but its not very good. The plot having a cowboy get involved with an Indian maiden would be interesting if the sex didn't get in the way. Well, okay it might be interesting, but its not, because its so badly paced and and only partly acted. I can only imagine what the close ups of the dancing tushes looked like on a big screen, probably more laughable then they do on TV. (I won't even mention the topless knife fight between two women who are tied together and spend the whole thing chest to chest. Never read about that in the old west) This is a film that requires liberal use of fast forward.I like schlock films but this is ridiculous. There is a reason that I don't go for this sort of films and that they tend not be very good, the plot taking a back seat to breasts. The original nudie cuties as they are called were originally nudist films or films where there was no touching but as the adult industry began to grow the film makers either tried to be clever or tried to exploit something else in order to put butts in seats. The clever ones were very few which only left hacks who were of limited talent. The comedies often came off best with the humor approaching the first grade level, infantile but harmlessly fun. Something that could rarely be said about any other genre cross dressed as a nudie.The Ramrodder looks good and has a couple of nice pieces but its done in by being neither western nor sex film.I need not watch this again.Of interest to probably no one, the rapist and killer in the film was played by Bobby Beausoleil, a member of the Manson family who was arrested for murdering a school teacher not long after filming wrapped.Obviously these sort of things will ruin some peoples lives. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-238e059a2909431791f14ed4e9d00beb", "input": "Review: This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, \"Hollywood North\" does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, \"Flight to Bogota\" with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, \"Hollywood North\" is a great place to start. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56ebbe4d7096489a8c88dddb725e1adb", "input": "Review: This is one of the greatest movies ever maybe even the greatest movie ever. I had forgotten about the movie for about 12 years. Until I saw an add on TV for ADGTH and it brought back fond memories of me watching it when I was a little kid. And when I watched it a few nights ago I became addicted to the movie. Usually I don't like animated family movies but this one is special it is the perfect family movie.The ending of the movie always touches my heart and saddens me very much but that is what makes this movie amazing better than all of the garbage that is coming out for kid movies today. I mean the movie is G rated and it is about 2 dogs who are involved with gambling, there is a lot of smoking, drinking, murder, death and hell depicted in the movie. Which I Believe makes the movie from good to great. I mean movies today don't bring reality to kids and in this movie they did.RIP Judith Barsi & Dom DeLuise Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc883803aa474845a654f0c3e57e6551", "input": "Review: I'm surprised how many people give this move less than 7 stars.But they just don't understand the movie.The story is about growing up in a difficult situation.There is a crazy grandmother who really wants the best for your grandchildren.And there's good reason why so many critics like this movie.And the reason is because they understand the movie.I feel sorry for the low scores given by some people.I wish I could just write a brief summary of a movie but IMDb requires you to write 10 lines.I frankly don't have anything else to say. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21cd1a63530a465fa87acddf98439506", "input": "Review: I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a177e9ecaa54667b0665b8dd191bcba", "input": "Review: In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy – the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks – that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series! – are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4935976d30fa49c1b6f8d9c38daee7f3", "input": "Review: In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like \"Plan 9!\") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ebea22cbd2e46fda67bf68aebb2b152", "input": "Review: OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical TailerMy Grade: F Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f56ed7a4ea7423683305a6e07dd2db0", "input": "Review: If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0cca64224e5d40ceb157d0c73609c936", "input": "Review: Will and Ted's Bodacious journey is an existential trip through themes of mortality, religion, time, Heaven and Hell, man's quest for fame and his fears of the body being overcome by a soulless machine. It is the most intelligent work of fiction since Paradise Lost and references many great past works of art- Dante, Iron Maiden, Virgil, Shakespeare. This time the dudes are a famous rock band having travelled through time collecting icons from the past- Napolean, Joan Of Ark (Noah's wife), Oscar Wilde, and Charles Darwin. They took the skills they learned from each of these people, abducted a couple of Princesses, and finally learned to play their guitars and write hit songs. These songs teach the world to love again and war, hunger, evil are vanquished for eternity. We fast forward into the distant future where an evil dictator who despises good music called Simon Cow-Al wants to rule the world. He eats Rooshus (the cool guy from the first film who helps Bill Playboy Esquire and Ted Theodore Alvin) and gains the power to send two cyborgs back in time. The cyborgs are living tissue over metal exoskeleton and coated in mimetic poly alloy allowing them the survive the turmoil of time travel, and they can imitate anything they sample by physical contact. It is their job to Kill the good Biff and Fred and take over their lives by making terrible music that no-one could like. By doing this they will change the world forever- Gryll and Jed's music will never be made leaving a world of war, famine, and hatred, and more annoyingly, bland boy/girl group pop music. There is a startling twist as the good guys actually are killed and they have to work out a way to save the world, themselves, and their wives from the evil Dopplebangers inhabiting their bodies.Penelope Spheerhead shows her knowledge of both youth culture and real culture by mixing modern day music and phrases with post modern sets and artistic references, and seeks to teach us all something by delving into our very psyche to show us ourselves. She presents the nightmares which faced the late 80s teen in a society which had abandoned them and beckons us to dissect the post structuralist jingoism, self love, and malaise of the time. Charging us with a belief that we can indeed change the world it is an inspiring message, but in order to achieve such dreams we must traverse and indeed face our nightmares. To overcome is to succeed, to defeat Death is the first step in truly living and not merely surviving. In the words of Kenneth Reeves- 'Wow!' Best Scene: For a fun game- see how many songs, bands, and albums cover references you can spot throughout the film. There are at least 6. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cec166c33a8045bb93ba663b5b53cc6e", "input": "Review: I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2433248ab79461b97663f9af9171fb5", "input": "Review: Skippy from Family Ties goes from clean-cut to metal kid in this fairly cheesy movie. The film seems like it was made in response to all those upset parents who claimed metal music was turning their kids evil or making them kill themselves - except in this one a dead satanic metal star is trying to come back from the grave (using Skippy to help out). And while the plot is corny and cliche, the corniness (for example, an evil green fog taking off a girl's clothes)and the soundtrack are what make the movie so hilarious (and great). And of course, there's nothing like Ozzy Osbourne playing a preacher who's asking what happened to the love song :). Definitely a movie for having a few friends over for a good laugh. And while you're at it, make it a double feature with Slumber Party Massacre 2 - there's an \"evil rocker\" (as stated on the video box)driller killer in black leather w/fringe. A must see for cheesy movie fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5eef1ae85c64aadaab1bfdb945e9b2b", "input": "Review: This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-49d174d64a6f48a182747abc99e34178", "input": "Review: Without \"mental anachronism\", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the \"disenchantment of the world\". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of \"primitive thought\". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54201de581044bf7a6761ba352acbef1", "input": "Review: Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a \"breakthrough\" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention \"trailer park\"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the \"Goofs\" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a934e6585f4049eaa05fec14eacae8d1", "input": "Review: It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-788b0a061612497782d3eb49f452d6f5", "input": "Review: This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebf06d62f446440ea4c10e854fac3e74", "input": "Review: Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays \"Ashenden\" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is \"at war\" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5530aedd4c23466ab52f5988995667df", "input": "Review: A wonderfully quirky film with enough twists for a sack of pretzels. Parker Posey plays Fay Grim as a sexy, vulnerable, loving mother who may or may not be what she seems. The story is very tongue in cheek, and the dialog skillfully understated. Hints of humor and intrigue, neither of which overpower the characterization Posey pulls off so well. The supporting cast is stellar. The downside? This film needs your full attention, almost to the point of stopping the film and taking notes. Posey has more sex appeal in her lifting of an eyebrow than most actresses have in their entire body. She's worth your time, even if you don't understand the denouement. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39775d51b7d64dfba983e52e790738ec", "input": "Review: In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54c1475d5bf443adafba56bc0246e98b", "input": "Review: This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off. Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie. This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-04dd9252c6ab4a05996bc27c2e387862", "input": "Review: So one person says, \"This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II.\" And the other says, \"Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?\" And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. \"I can't explain. Just see it.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9debde905869474e999d846169c5a9cc", "input": "Review: It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun. I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92d5378d01bd4957830fe9dd567baf83", "input": "Review: The movie \"Holly\" is the story of a young girl who has been sold by her poor family and smuggled across the border to Cambodia to work as a prostitute in the infamous \"K11\" red light village. In the movie, Holly is waiting to be sold at a premium for her virginity when she meets Patrick who is losing money and friends through gambling and bar fights. Patrick and Holly have an immediate bond over their \"stubbornness\", but this is all disrupted when Holly is sold to a child trafficker and disappears. As movie goers, we are then thrust into Patrick's pursuit to find Holly again. Holly then shows her willingness to leave this lifestyle but her confusion on what is right and wrong. \"Holly\" carries us through the beautiful and harsh Cambodia while discovering that HOLLY is not just one girl. She is the voice of millions of children who are exploited and violated every year with no rights or protection.Holly is less extreme than its subject matter might suggest, such as documentaries that involve 4-year olds and sexual trafficking, but does manage to shed considerable light on Cambodian / Vietnamese trafficking of children into prostitution. It is a moving story that helps to shed light on the horrible situation in which many children face and their struggles to trust and realize what is right and wrong.Patrick, the antagonist of the film is an American dealer of stolen artifacts who is also losing money and friends while playing cards and getting into bar fights. While on a journey, his motorbike runs out of fuel, and he is forced to rent a room at a brothel. During his stay he comes across Holly, a twelve year old girl who has been sold by her parents and is being abducted into slavery and prostitution. Holly and Patrick begin a friendship of trust and understanding. He discovers a clever, stubborn girl beneath the traumatized exterior and becomes determined to save her -- though their strictly platonic relationship is misinterpreted by almost everyone they meet. When she suddenly disappears, he starts a journey to track her down, without having thought if he can really help her.Holly is able to escape on her way to another brothel, when she jumps from the truck and runs into a field filled with mines. A mine is set off by a cow and the truck driver believes she is dead, so Holly is then left on her own. During Patrick's journey to find holly he meets a social worker who tries to talk some sense into him and shares the facts with him that haunts the Cambodian region. The idea of paying for her freedom simply fuels the demand, she explains: 30,000 children in prostitution in Cambodia - next year it could be 60,000. \"I'm not trying to save 60,000,\" he tells her, \"I'm trying to save one.\" Patrick discovers that the idea of whisking her to safety is quickly put to rest when the social worker tells him that the US will not let him adopt and, although it takes five minutes to 'save' a child, it takes five years to reintegrate her into society. Patrick is not affected by the information and he continues his quest to find Holly.The audience is then shown that Holly makes it to a small town and is foraging for food with other homeless children. She is then befriended by a local policemen who seem little better than criminals with a badge, when they sell her to another brothel and then make a deal to a Vietnamese businessman who then takes her virginity. Holly then seems to think that this is her destiny and when Patrick finally find her, she is willing to \"yum yum\" and \"boom boom\" her distant friend. Patrick is utterly confused by this change in behavior, but he is not deterred in his plan to take her away from this world. In the end, he steals her away and brings her to a safe-land in the comfort of the social worker. Holly is given fresh clothes, if feed and brought to a dance class, but she is forbidden to see Patrick. This intense yearning to be in the comfort of Patrick's friendship, she runs away from the safe house and back onto the streets in Cambodia.Meanwhile, Patrick is dealing with the decision to leave the country and flee back to the United States or to stay in Cambodia. His thoughts continue to revert back to Holly and during a visit to a bar; an older male sees the picture he is holding and comments on his sexual appetite when he had sex with her. This enrages Patrick and he hits the man and runs out of the bar. Eventually, Patrick is caught by the police in the eyes of Holly, who is hiding behind a pole.The movie \"Holly\" may make the audience want to donate money towards organizations that improve the life for these poor youngsters, and even campaign to reduce the amount of brothels in the region, but the film's dramatic weaknesses may reduce its chances of being seen by enough people to make a difference. Overall, I think the concept is better as a documentary and it was not as touching as a movie. The actors did a great job of showing their raw emotion and the true confusion of the youngsters who are affected by this lifestyle, but in the end, the harsh lifestyle of the region and the desperate notions of the parents who sell their children to uphold their own starvation, does nothing to help the children's situations. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95301e2e5c1d44ef82d94e7d9e232879", "input": "Review: I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.The movie begins with promise. I liked \"The Exorcist\" parody, especially the \"come on out, ma\" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, \"It was just a booty call!!\" That was kinda funny. 2) The \"Save the Last Dance\" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f367b1b26a34dd1ae6f539699f5a44f", "input": "Review: This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d11661ebcb0f4741ab3d792feedaf39d", "input": "Review: I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the \"role playing\" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b74a456870a44ff904fc89b02b7d091", "input": "Review: Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, \"The Money Pit\".If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b67831ec3a4a436e8231779f51ccbdc3", "input": "Review: (Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, \"Love in the Time of Money\" is a \"good start\". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth \"Angels in America\" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38f064d3ac1547cf9d8c22b31f102f75", "input": "Review: In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40b52ac694a74716b06db6cbb7b34929", "input": "Review: Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those \"OMG, 5 minutes another song\" movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.A parody of all the dreams you've ever had.......... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca40d0c465c34ae8a48792d73597776d", "input": "Review: When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d629c81ab6a540c7a18bbe5c6ab58cbd", "input": "Review: In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4eed311d34c04fa882af91b4f55512e1", "input": "Review: Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22c4cd5473c14d06b1b0d98234ff04ca", "input": "Review: Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* \"Kissing Cousins\" ?????? What kind of line is that? \"Slipery when wet\" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aca3776161024788847c53f0c558a832", "input": "Review: I read a small ad in some horror magazine in the early nineties about Liebe des Totes (the love of the dead) or something similar. This of course awoke my curiosity so I ordered Nekromantik 1 & 2 and Der Todesking (The Death King). The Nekromantik movies are Ok, even kind of interesting and unique in their approach to the subject Necrophilia (even if they obviously are horror-opera entries rather than intended to invoke fear in the viewers mind, they are actually quite funny.)TODESKING, on the other hand is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It consist of a series of scenes depicting the many facets of death. Death as an enemy; Death as a reliever, Death as the very fysical decomposition of the body. The film is a metaphor over life. It shows how fragile life is and how short our lives are. It reduces its viewers to the childs they (we) actually are. The fact that we cannot really understand the nature of Death, and hence neither the process of dying, is the core message of the film. This is a most realistic film. Never does Buttgereit try to hide death behind white roses or whatever. No matter what moral standards you set up, death is unevitable, and will sooner or later be not a fiction but YOUR reality. This applies to YOU, Dear Reader, like it applies to the viewers of the film. Some juvenile reviewers seem not to grasp this, which is fully excused, since they of course will live forever...This is no exploitation movie. Why? Because death does not exploit us humans. It harvests us. We grow for seven days, then we are brought back to the schopenhauerian state of pre-birth, that is Death. Buttgereit gives us his version of the oldest of tales. Whether you choose to regard it as \"optimistic\" or \"pessimistic\" is up to you. At first glance it may seem very dark. Consider though, that in order for something to live, something else must die. \"Who wants to live forever?\"I believe that when Buttgereit shows a body, that are being consumed by maggots, he shows not only decomposition, but GENERATION of new life. Is it not better to die and give life to maggots and then birds and eventually become soil, than to remain the living dead zombie that is one of the the favorite pets of the genre?When you realize this, you see Der Todesking it its right context.Sieben Tage hat die Woche, siebenmal letzte Stunden. Seven are the days of week (weak, mortal !), seven times the last hour.Dont fear the Reaper, Buttgereit tells us, because the Reaper takes only what is ripe. And apples that are not plucked for food will rot!Have a good life, fellow IMDB'ers !(And watch this film, that compares only to Ingemar Bergmans \"The Seventh Seal\" in terms of depth and universality) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-970213aaaa0b4cd9a97a5c92d491b1f1", "input": "Review: This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5878e4b009cc45a2810f8984924c1749", "input": "Review: This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to \"Blainsworth\" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it. Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c59c6f7c847493c8ad488ae660ad471", "input": "Review: This could be well have been THE definitive film noir of all time, had not the Columbia Studios cut so much of Orson Welles's original. What we are left with is a flawed, yet brilliant film that showcases the overwhelming talent of Welles as an actor/director and Rita Hayworth as a serious dramatic talent.'The Lady From Shanghai' is film noir at it's most sizzling and confusing. Welles, with an uneven accent, portrays Michael O'Hara, a journeyman Irishman, who, after a fateful encounter with the seductive, dangerous Elsa Bannister (Hayworth, in a GREAT performance)finds himself virtually coerced into accepting a job as a crewman on her and her crippled husband's (Everett Sloane) yacht. Elsa, or 'Rosalie' as Michael likes to call her, plays the innocent, helpless doll very well, ensnaring O'Hara in her web. As the lovers conduct a not-so-secret affair at sea, Arthur Bannister's partner in his law firm, George Grisby (Glenn Anders)comes aboard. He is a weird, untrustworthy figure who offers Michael a unique proposal: He will get $5000 to assist Grisby in the faking of Grisby's death, so it looks murder. The plan is for Michael to get off a technicality, and run off into the sun with Elsa. But things do not go to plan.Hayworth delivers us one of the best femme fatales of all time in a very ambiguous portrayal. At times she seems genuinely vulnerable and child-like, at others brutal, world-weary and hard. Always she is brilliantly beautiful, whether he situation calls for her to be dripping wet in a swimsuit or dressed in black, brandishing a gun. Hayworth is beautifully photographed here, and she is a far-cry from her famous 'Gilda' role. Her then-husband Orson Welles cut off her trademark auburn locks for a dyed blonde crop (angering Columbia boss Harry Cohn). It was a terrific marketing ploy, and he change suits her changed attitude wonderfully. She is not the sympathetic femme fatale that 'Gilda' is, here- instead she is a predatory, black-hearted dame who sees murder as a very useful option.The Welles and Hayworth pairing came at a time when the couple were having extreme difficulties in their marriage. They would divorce after the film was made, so this is also a curiosity for providing some view into the complicated relationship. They are hateful, not romantic, lovers in this, so it's hard to gauge whether or not they had real chemistry on screen. Certainly every encounter is potent and filled with raw sexuality, with Welles as the 'fall guy' (he even admits it himself in the film!) and Rita as the double-crossing babe.Welles character is the typical noir 'drifter' with not much sense. As Welles voice-over proves to use, O'Hara indeed does not use his brain very much 'expect to be thinking of her (Elsa)'. Welles usually played intelligent, charismatic fellows, so his turn here as the dim-witted Michael is unusual and very interesting. Indeed, Welles was an actor of fine talent and he pulls off it well.Everett Sloane is suitably slimy as Hayworth's crippled husband. One wonders why he hires Michael. It is obvious that his wife is interested in him romantically, so why does he invite a 'threat' on board? One interpretation could be that Michael provides the 'service' to his wife that Bannister cannot in his crippled state. There is definitely something to that theory, with a lot of implications toward Elsa's behaviour before she met her husband (was she some sort of prostitute?)and Grisby's knowledge of Bannister's most intimate secrets being hinted at in several scenes.This is a jumbled, convoluted film with a plot that is ultimately flawed. We are more interested in the love triangle than the murder plot, as with most noirs. Welles provides us with many of his usual brilliant cinematic touches, including the justifiably famous 'hall of mirrors' climax. It's a terrific scene, one ending that can almost obliterate the faults earlier on in the movie and lift it into greatness. This fun house scene is visually stunning, with a Dali-like feel to the painted sets (apparently Orson painted them himself). Subtle visual imagery utilized throughout the film by Welles enhances the plot and makes this a thought-provoking experience.The dialogue is scorching and confusing, delivered superbly by Rita's alternately breathy low voice and helpless, high-pitched little-girl voice. Hayworth proves her acting capabilities in this one, and proves that SHE is the ultimate femme fatale of 'noir'. It's a pity (only a slight one , as Rita was a brilliant dancer) that she did so many delightful yet frothy and often forgettable musicals for Columbia in the 40's instead of darkly-themed noir like this. She was a brilliant actress when given the chance to show off her talent.9/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64a13e0fb1fc45108032c84b6f3cde79", "input": "Review: First I'd like to excuse my bad English.I'm not a HOSTEL-hardcore-fan, but I liked that movie nevertheless. Live Feed, however, SUCKED BIG TIME! I have never seen a gore-movie with superb acting, but hey, who's surprised? The acting in Live Feed was... well, not there! I've seen some commented this as it must have been a school project or something. Okey, but not by students in media or acting school. This was NO class at all! And what about the story? A really sad rip-off on Hostel. And what about the gore? What about the psychopathic torture scenes that supposed to make your guts twist and leave you cold-sweating? That was the most disappointing about the hole movie! Short, quick and NO edge. More like an execution rather than a torture. Okey, there where buckets of blood, but it didn't even look real. The slaughtering and the violence reminded more of Braindead than Hostel or any of the Saw-movies. And Braindead was fun! Okey, I laughed at Live Feed a couple of times, but that was more out of disappointment than out of sheer fun!So instead of wasting 80 minutes by watching Live Feed, watch ANYTHING else! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4187ad89e074e729f4c8cf296973af5", "input": "Review: Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is \" That people change \" rather than say something along the lines like \" I`m a right slapper \" or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex \" as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said \" Ignorance is strength \" . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-38321a745d144097a26e576f3baed97a", "input": "Review: PROM NIGHT (2008)directed by: Nelson McCormickstarring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davisplot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.An example:Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOLcons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56e389569a5044c3a3ed96984c26245d", "input": "Review: let me say that i love Adam Sandler, watching reign over me i was paying close attention to his actingwhen he raises his voice, i cant help but think of happy gilmore yelling at a golf ball, then i snap back as Adam Sandler sucks me inReign over Me is a great film, a film that comes off slow at first with you expecting emotion in every sceneDon Cheadle always does a great job and is no exception here with some truly great lines and is worthy of an Oscar in any movie he doesadam sandler was amazing in so many ways not only was this his most dramatic/best acted film of his career. but i can recall laughing out loud at many parts of this filmThe supporting cast was great also with Saffron Burroughs and Jada Pinkett SmithI would highly recommend this movie its got tremendous acting beautiful shots of NYC great comedy great drama And a new found respect for Adam sandler if you ever doubted him or a reassurance at how great Don Cheadle is Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71ca91922cdb4496b82cdf2570dd6cba", "input": "Review: This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a394aef941e344afa1a2b6b30f8ca39b", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the \"directing\" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bba0a0c15c441508d12bcad3d04c03b", "input": "Review: Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was \"tricked\" into falling in love with Gillian? As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59ffac953d0243779ae52a86c8cf46c3", "input": "Review: Chesty gringo Telly Savalas (as Frank Cooper) is a US-Mexico \"Border Cop\". He serves as a father figure to young immigrant Danny De La Paz (as Benny Romero), who wants Mr. Savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. Savalas is tough, but boss Eddie Albert (as Commander Moffat) may be tougher. Tough is what you need to stop smuggler Michael V. Gazzo (as Chico Suarez). Alliances may be in flux.If you find the possibility of hearing \"Kojak\" and \"Oliver Douglas\" uttering expletives to be repulsive, you ought to steer clear of \"The Border\". If not, you may not have the stomach for the \"realistic\" cow slaughtering scene. Although it doesn't end up being worth much, Mr. De La Paz and Cecilia Camacho (as Leina) steal the show. ** The Border (1979) Tony Richardson ~ Telly Savalas, Danny De La Paz, Eddie Albert Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5df80cf2745248d08205f17c1403b14f", "input": "Review: This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50ed79191fa94a6a9a25816a191e51a7", "input": "Review: Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-000396372b9543f09a8fe68a9c3fdf52", "input": "Review: If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a13ef1ae936a458d9bba764b7e574ff2", "input": "Review: James Stewart stars in a classic western tale of revenge which ties in with the fate of the films other star the Winchester Rifle. Stewart is it goes without saying excellent adding some cold hard obsession to his usual laid back cowboy. The story follows the fate of a Winchester rifle and its owners after being won in a competition by our hero and stolen by the man he is hunting.We meet a selection of gamblers, gun fighters, Indian traders and bank robers as we follow the rifles path through Indian battles, bank heists etc. The supporting cast are all solid with Dan Durya standing out as Waco Johnny Dean the live-wire gunfighter with an itchy trigger finger. Also as a trivia note a very early appearance from Rock Hudson as an Indian chief.The end showdown is a classic a tense rifle battle fought at long range in and around a rocky outcrop. Throw in some good old western action, fist fights, shootouts and horseback chases it makes for a rollicking western adventure. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a81e098d3255422f91b665808cf2d1b0", "input": "Review: This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a \"deep\" \"meaningful\" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties \"method \" -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his \"Uncle \"character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.Word to the wise:Take Foley's \"at close range\" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd0c689c3a6c4001bad3c015776652e9", "input": "Review: This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping \"Was that it?!\" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8318106775142b1b3e8a901fc3ad6c2", "input": "Review: This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no \"Who\" fan can afford to miss.Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in \"The Impossible Planet\", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e15ec777fa04c21bcd7b241853616bc", "input": "Review: This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4df4848cf7a64ec79c86481cad7e3861", "input": "Review: This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on \"free TV\"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.Skip this bogus thing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf5770de76fc4b03b18d9cd800b00659", "input": "Review: Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5a14c9711ca4e709fd51ddd689245ff", "input": "Review: Let us begin by saying that this film's English title \"The Power of Kangwon Province\" is an absolute misnomer.It is because in Hong Sang Soo's film,there are no actual shots of wars,troubles and conflicts.So the idea of establishing power of a province is neither suitable nor valid in the context of this film.If we were to judge this film by its Korean language title,\"Kangwon-do ui him\" is going to appear as a cryptic statement about emotional turmoils of its young protagonists whose minds are not at rest.Hong Sang Soo has also directed a highly prolific visual document about erratic choices made by people in their lives.The people in question are a couple of young girls who are constantly in the process of displaying their moods,whims and fancies. If making a film out of nothingness can be claimed as a film maker's meritorious virtue then Hong Sang Soo has to be saluted as a courageous film maker whose films speak volumes about ubiquitous nothingness of human relationships,sentiments and lives.Whether one likes it or not,this is the only fair conclusion that be deduced from this particular film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0436fb805ed41e0a2dce09e8fff3127", "input": "Review: Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural \"thriller\" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.The alleged \"killer cut\" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.1/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-16666defcdbd4f2299f5cd088e0c88fa", "input": "Review: I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: \"Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond,\" \"If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is.\" He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: \"Grow up 007!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7caaac8a402e41abb52e36b886c6016a", "input": "Review: Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcb6701a526d4d5c9cddd852d33799d8", "input": "Review: Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias..... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-da6b567987a2433da413d1b3f7fde74b", "input": "Review: I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-823d95ede7cf4bc7b672e0239d71460c", "input": "Review: This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad moviedo yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-49bbd0cc3d124979a25b68f93442b1ab", "input": "Review: The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59d4bb56d6184b7085235cb55008ba6b", "input": "Review: Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like \"Tarzan\" and \"The Emperor's New Groove\" have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. \"Atlantis\" is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of \"The Little Mermaid\" et al.So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's \"Titanic\". Both films feature a boat in some manner.And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, \"The Little Mermaid\" (A good thing).You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths – a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale – need I go on?I don't know why this got to anyone – I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent \"Titan A.E.\" down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, \"Nadia\", for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film – after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b00f9f55a7d0449f9ccc30bd11249d61", "input": "Review: Was it foreshadowing when Tori complained that her first boyfriend was treating her like a robot, and then her new boyfriend (the murderer) turned out to be a designer of artificial intelligence? I think so. Scenes to make you squeal with delight: montages galore, a strip-tease in a kimono (what do you call it when you seductively put clothes on, instead of take them off?), and a climactic battle on skis! Definitely tune in for the beginning and end, but you can grab a sandwich during the second act when all the plot is happening. Is it better than CO-ED CALL GIRL? Nah. Does Tori ever make it to paradise, or out of the snow, even? Nope. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8407b82254134af4863fecdd1c454641", "input": "Review: Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go \"ape\" over Buddy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-895d4977b8fa425fa078296abe07ca5b", "input": "Review: Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea2c8936c2d5454295c5b67767a09faa", "input": "Review: I instantly fell in love with \"Pushing Daisies\". This show manages to put a smile on my face with it's great storytelling, witty dialog and great acting. But that's not all: It also manages to keep you until the end. The basic idea behind the show - Bringing people back to life with one touch, ending the undead status with a second - is interesting and could still be in later seasons. But the suspenseful murder cases, the unique look of the show and the highly proficient narrator add to the experience. But \"Pushing Daisies\" is more than it's parts. It has a certain charm that I really enjoy and I'm looking forward to enter the world of Ned and Chuck for a second season. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d89b7063757b4e3b9cded4718baad084", "input": "Review: Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d036a0ce3114465d8e5c7b5c434b53e5", "input": "Review: I must confess to not having read the original M R James story although I have read many of his other supernatural tales. I've also seen most of the previous BBC Christmas Ghost Stories and this one, in my opinion, surpasses most of them, only equalling The Signalman.I can't really fault A View From a Hill - the direction and 'mood' is perfect, as is the acting, lighting and, of course, the story and writing. I thoroughly enjoyed this and can only hope for more of this quality from the same director and production team. I understand that the BBC plan to make some more (not necessarily based on M R James stories) so that's promising.10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-306cb58cb06c41ac933a4a57adb3dd01", "input": "Review: Home Room really surprised me. In comparison to other movies that were written regarding Columbine high school this one is the best. Home room does not show the school shooting but rather the aftermath and the effects of the community and the town. The movie focus' on two opposite characters., Alecia(Busy Phillips) and Deanna(Erika Christensen). Alecia is an outcast who witnessed the entire shooting. She seems to show no emotion about it. Deanna is a popular girl and the only surviving victim. Alecia is forced to visit Deanna at the hospital in order to graduate. Meanwhile the police are investigating Alecia as she might have known the shooting was going to happen. Alecia and Deanna are very different and do not get along at first. Eventually they develop a mutual understanding for one another and become friends. (very much in the style of the breakfast club). Home Room Beautifully shows the power of closeness and turmoil after a school shooting. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9430639dd66433f87f33a1cb7858723", "input": "Review: Somewhere near the bottom of the film studio ladder you can find companies like U.F.O, Troma and beneath them lie Seduction cinema.Seduction is a direct to video production company that specialize in lesbian themed, non-hardcore erotic movies. It has developed a very dedicated fan base that purchase each new title as they are released but sadly the company has become too closely associated with frequent star Misty Mundae. I say sadly because recent mainstream interest and her appearance on the show Masters of Horrors has caused her to set her sights a little higher than the zero budget S.C efforts which forces the company to find a new identity. But back in their glory days they released this film on a very appreciative world.The gorgeous Misty Mundae is forced to attend a boarding school at the request of a absent father. At the school she meets her absurdly hot room-mate played by Ruby Larocca who immediately has designs on her but the headmistress (Barbara Joyce) has other plans. In typical S.C style the movie stops every ten minutes for a extended sex scene but unlike most of their efforts this one has a somewhat interesting story and a couple of good performances. Ms. Larocca appears to be having a great time as the sexual predator who views Misty as a tasty meal and Darian Caine makes a welcome (though brief) appearance as Satan. This is the sort of film that Jess Franco would crank out in the 70s (although this one does not have the hardcore sex that Franco was always willing to throw in for foreign sales) and fans of that madman's work would be wise to give this one a go.To me, as a long time zero budget cinema fan (and Troma worshiper), I came across the Seduction cinema films through their parody films (Playmate of the apes, Who wants to be a erotic billionaire) but I actually prefer their more original works. You either see past the low budget and occasionally weak acting or you get hung up on these things and just hate all of these films. For me the most obvious thing that unites these no-budget movies is a real sense of fun. These low budget companies are able to create their own unique style which gives the viewer something very different from the bland, by the numbers, studio efforts that load up the multiplexes.If you have never seen a Seduction cinema film either this or Sin Sisters (featuring both of the Mundae sisters) are excellent choices to begin with. This one is a fun, fast paced film (although the frequent exterior shots of the school do get a little old) and the DVD is totally loaded with extras including a ton of previews of other company offerings, a great behind the scenes featurette and some deleted scenes including a alternate opening. I do recommend you pass on the disc's bonus feature, the first film by director, as it is quite weak and not really worth viewing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f862274638d94851b86d2d9b8d3eefde", "input": "Review: This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09cb359b464e45f4977c27d556497fdb", "input": "Review: This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bd15ef6d82746dc851e70e2d902b6be", "input": "Review: Eleven different Film Makers from different parts of the world are assembled in this film to present their views and ideas about the WTC attack. This is one of the best effort you will see in any Film. Films like this are rarely made and appreciated. This film tries to touch every possible core of WTC. Here are some of the most important stories from the film that makes this film so unique.There is the story from Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) where somewhere in Iran people are preparing for the attacks from America. There a teacher is trying to educate her students by informing them about Innocent People being killed in WTC massacre. Then comes a story from Youssef Chahine (Egypt) where a Film Maker comes across face-to-face conversation with a Dead Soldier in the WTC attack and a Dead Hard Core Terrorist who was involved in WTC attack. Then we see a story from Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) where a group of Five Innocent children's sees Osama Bin Laden and plans to kidnap him and win the reward money from America. Then we see the story from Alejandro Gozalez Inarritu (Mexico) where you see a Black Screen and slowly you see the real footage of WTC buildings coming down. And the people who are stuck in the building are jumping out of it to save their lives. The other most important story is from Mira Nair (India) where a mother is struggling to get respect for her Dead Son whose name is falsely trapped in WTC massacre! After September 11 attack, Our heart beat automatically starts pumping if we hear two names anywhere in the world.. First is World Trade Centre and the second is Osama! This film totally changes our perception and makes a strong point by claiming something more to it.I will definitely recommend this movie to everyone who loves to have such kinds of Home DVD Collection. Definitely worth every penny you spend. But please don't expect anything more apart from Films in this DVD. There is of course Filmographies of the Film Makers but No Extra Features. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb2b9f2178cf442a878c7073aabcf9d3", "input": "Review: This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV ! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79440946a8424dab8e114d067d91761a", "input": "Review: In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e41ec449677418c859685adb2ccd601", "input": "Review: This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to \"Mr & Mrs Iyer\".In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bea7fe3278ae400db740526b0cb194dc", "input": "Review: I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ba2ee965e4b4ae0b6013b740a83d10e", "input": "Review: I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel \"The Last Don\" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd4ea9c989934513abf196836b836651", "input": "Review: For Muslim women in western Africa, married life at the hands of abusive husbands can be very hard . The community may not explicitly endorse such behaviour, but equally, they may not yet be ready to see it as criminal, an attitude which of course enables it to continue. Fortunately, the letter of the Cameroonian law promises equality to all, and this documentary follows the real life exploits of various female practitioners in the Cameroonian legal system as they attempt to secure justice for a number of women and children. What is notable (apart from the uplifting central story) is how, in spite of their informality, the courts are actually pragmatically progressive, if a case is actually bought. The program also gives a fascinating insight the whole Cameroonian life-style, which (aside from the awful crimes committed in the featured cases) seems amazingly emotional and joyous compared with that enjoyed by inhabitants of Europe or North America. And while I concede that this comment may betray naiveté on my part, this attitude appears to be captured in delightful pidgin-English they speak. Overall, this is a terrific little film, and much more fun to watch than you might imagine. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0090d0cd068f4a18b36c3e955839f340", "input": "Review: I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae4349f420b848de9fea12701fc0a303", "input": "Review: What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3613712b512f4be7a907324eb66ddc65", "input": "Review: I have been a huge Lynn Peterson fan ever since her breakthrough role in the 1988 blockbuster movie \"Far North\", and even though I loved her in her one other film \"Slow\" (2004) where she plays \"Francis\", this is by far and away her strongest role.Lynn, as I'm sure you all know (or should), plays the critical role of \"Driver\".Unfortunately, other than Lynn's amazing performance, I'm afraid this movie doesn't really have much going for it.Oh wait - there was one other thing - the amazing creativity of the editing to remove profanity for TV viewers. Memorable lines like: \"You son-of-a-gun!\", \"You son-of-a-witch!\", \"Shoot!\", and \"Well, Forget You!\"O.K. Bye.P.S.: Does anyone know where I can get another Lynn Peterson poster? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29ddcf7d53fb4718a4845f01f5934135", "input": "Review: The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-714ffbde1c7047e1ac96a62a96f55eb4", "input": "Review: I really liked this movie. Of course the idea is pretty much out there...the federal government arranging to have a tracking device implanted into the jaw of an small-time thief to lure a more dangerous thief/computer hacker out of hiding. But Alvin Sanders, the man who the feds have \"volunteered\" to be implanted with the device, is a very likable person and it turns out to be a lot of fun getting in his head with him for a little while. Alvin even eventually proves himself to be much more than a good-humored but passive or one-dimensional character when he shows that he is not nearly as easily manipulated as he may seem. Definetly worth a watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e8141fc08b04d4a9aeecab79cb7a5bd", "input": "Review: Cosimo (Luis Guzman) ends up in prison for car burglary and there he's given the plan for the perfect heist from a lifer in prison; so he has to get out of jail, fast. He tells his girlfriend Rosalind (Patricia Clarkson) to find a man who will do his time in prison for some money. But no one wants to do the time for Cosimo's crime and yet everybody seems to know a guy who will do that. Soon bad boxer Pero Mahalovic (Sam Rockwell) founds out the details of this so called \"perfect job\".First of all, I think this movie was very funny and from my point of view I would recommend it to everyone. This movie is remake of Italian comedy \"I Soliti Ignoti\". I didn't watch the Italian original so I cannot judge or compare those two movies. But \"Welcome to Collinwood\" is great comedy for itself, about four people trying to rob the money from the vault in one house. Everyone gave their part of brilliance from this movie cast. Really excellent movie for these actors: Sam Rockwell, William H. Macy (great), Isaiah Washington, Michael Jeter (great), Luis Guzmán, Patricia Clarkson, Jennifer Esposito and finally George Clooney gave their share in this project. Maybe to say that this movie is only comedy, isn't fair. This is more then that. Because of one difference. All of thieves in this movie have very small wishes when they are asked: what will they do with their money? It is mostly securing their future in very humble way. This fact goes beyond comedy into the soul of that criminals. And not only them but also cop Babitch, who is presented like corrupted one; so here directors Russo presents us fact that criminals and cop are the same. Actually all in Collinwood are; and not only in Collinwood, cause all people chase money, on legal or illegal way. I don't like all movies were audience eventually likes and cheers for thieves. But, this one is exception. You have to love them all. Riley with his little baby and wife in jail. Toto with his pants. Cosimo with his line: \"Your mother's a whore!\" and all others. They are just like characters in my favorite comic, Alan Ford. They all trying to make some money, but simply they are out of luck. But they all did one good deed: they gave money to Riley, so he can get his wife out of prison. They are all heroes in my eyes, cause lots of \"honest\" people wouldn't do that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3841e355da14b00833d1f2311f1916f", "input": "Review: EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can \"blip\" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the \"faster\" humans.An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed \"She\" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by \"mistake\", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who \"breathe the foul air\" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are \"frogs\".From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and \"quaint\". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be \"beamed up\" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has \"given up\" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff5bdc9a5fd14959ae0db45c81e03292", "input": "Review: Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.No film epitomized this more than \"Stroker Ace\" which makes \"Cannonball Run\" look like a classic and \"Cannonball Run II\" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdb4d1587d22428aa1698ed8f4e7986e", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the \"directing\" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9046d23ce9c04b4c9acc1c01745c4c14", "input": "Review: With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a \"when it this stupid thing going to end?\" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said \"wow\" at the end. Bad in every respect. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85f3448ea43c4d18aaf60e9bf6e6f1b0", "input": "Review: It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.I was amazed to see \"Marcus Aurelius\" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like \"Whoopie Goldberg\" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52a09e565c964c7a992564e0edf7fe0b", "input": "Review: ''The 40 Year Old Virgin'''made me laugh a lot. I don't care if it is considered to be a very sexual comedy, I just enjoyed many of the jokes and scenes present in this movie. Steve Carell is perfect as the virgin nerd Andy Stitzer and I think the scene where Andy has his chest hair removed by wax one of the coolest, specially because it is real. Many of the actors and actresses present in this movie are well known or already famous,by the way.Andy Stitzer has a peaceful life. He is a little bit strange and collects lots of toys, but seems harmless. One day, while playing poker with his friends of his work, they discover that Andy is in fact...virgin! And he is already 40 years old! After this surprising revelation, all his friends are trying to make Andy sleep with a woman...the problem is the confusions in which Andy gets in,specially now that he is really starting to like Trish, a woman he met when she was buying a DVD player in the store he works at. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1895d5b5e39e4752b9198e14e3188a41", "input": "Review: Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-929440586940446d98d31736d11bd753", "input": "Review: This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.The headliner who plays \"Kathy\" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called \"cliche'\" - but it's almost completely inane.)All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16ca66c609a4441f92f95fb39304f9eb", "input": "Review: Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a \"fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire\" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c496c70755dd460c90faa14dbea5e2dc", "input": "Review: A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.My Grade: D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e9fdc0879a4490d83f67074859ff30c", "input": "Review: I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff6b485d2c0b4529bce4deead9c13ad6", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorite films of all time. I read the book and liked it, but this movie expands on everything the book made famous. The acting is fantastic, especially from Jon Voight, who plays Mr. Sir, a very evil character. This film has a certain way of storytelling that keeps you hooked throughout, until the end where everything is pulled together for a great ending. I also love the way this is directed, by flashing back and forth between the modern day and Stanley's ancestors' stories. The story was written by Louis Sachar, yes, but it seems that this story is made for film, and Andrew Davis does a great job directing it. I definitely recommend this to anyone who enjoys good movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e30ff79d70bd408e9b0787860f1fa483", "input": "Review: This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d6f3956349344b1b22bab3f2cb04502", "input": "Review: I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ea510a49cfc4700bc205f7d04010e58", "input": "Review: That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-97841f2236504939ba80384ca7fa0f39", "input": "Review: Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line \"Tori Spelling can't act\" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fd467d1e343487ea36cca63c4ba81af", "input": "Review: The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1cb876de174647c7aca2405bf6c2cea5", "input": "Review: This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5919fa38c5504d2f9a91e44995953375", "input": "Review: What can I say? This is one of the most perfect films ever made. Its a throwback to the glitxy,sterling romantic comedies of the 1940s..but with a modern touch.The screenplay bursts with wit,charm,humor and tenderness,the cinematograpy is breathtaking(NYC never looked so beautiful),and of course there is the cast! Dudley Moore turns in the performance of his career as Loveable,drunken Arthur Bach. He is also wistful and real..one of the film's best lines is his poignant \"Not Everyone who drinks is a poet...some of us drink because we're not poets.\" The great Sir John Gielgud won a much deserved Oscar for his splendid performance as Hobson,Arthur's valet and caretaker.Although He considered it a \"take the money and run role\",He brings to the character all the talent ,experience and bravura of an expert tragidian and a sly comedian. The supporting cast is also out of thisworld,from Geraldine Fitzgerald's sassy Grandma Bach to Stephen Elliott's bombastic Mafioso. The score is also extremely memorable and compliments the film perfectly.The only real problem with the film is the ill fated sequel it spawned. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59a62b1881954d44bcdfca806b89fcfb", "input": "Review: Full House came to me when I was about 9. I remember seeing re-runs of America's Funniest Home Videos with Bob Saget, and one day my mom told me that he was also in a show called Full House. One day, I was lucky enough to catch an episode while visiting family. It didn't seem too interesting at first, but as I watched more and more, ever night at 9:00, I would just be so into it.This show really makes you want to be there yourself, hang out with the girls, go places with them, and maybe even join in their little family \"sing-alongs\".The thing I like most about Full House is that it's a great show for kids AND adults of all ages. There will be some parts that are more for adults, then parts that are meant for kids, so that the whole family will enjoy it. No matter how cheesy it can be, it's still a great show, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone.10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-16775f722b2345a5a990407042358444", "input": "Review: Maximally manipulative Anabel Sims (Betsy Drake) sets out to trap her ideal man, aided by her co-worker, Julie. Esteemed pediatrician Madison Brown (Cary Grant) goes from bemused to betrothed in the space of 90 minutes on film, but to the viewer it's all eternity. Can a movie receive less than one star? This one is a prime candidate. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c83eb3579ca4260bbc3727a180ce224", "input": "Review: I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.A true gem. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f07c09b88714ee88ab2a4811b442cef", "input": "Review: I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the \"posession\" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-902953bf72d94846997fba18e5f69b4a", "input": "Review: Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to. What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6af0fcca65a4b0898cd10df980482bd", "input": "Review: Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab4eeb9885694d41ae65470c10f0f7d9", "input": "Review: I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. \"Dream to Believe\" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb22a0852a1a4abbb1e580304fe89607", "input": "Review: I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac4b8bb4ec15403f9a8202051e2903f4", "input": "Review: There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as \"pretty awful\" or \"not much good\", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't \"good\" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f42ef48249c4420687f4c232627befd7", "input": "Review: \"Boom\" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.The sad and disturbing fact of \"Boom\" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with \"Modesty Blaise\" and \"Boom\" (some may wish to add \"Secret Ceremony\"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful \"Go-Between\".Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in \"Night of the Iguana\" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both \"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof\" and \"Suddenly Last Summer\". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied \"if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams\". Had Gielgud seen \"Boom\" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British \"angry young men\". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.\"Boom\" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38c443b40931405bbc5302e4c4d28f5f", "input": "Review: Why is this movie not in the 250 best? This movie looks still astoundingly fresh 56 years after its production but it could only have been made at the aftermath of W.W.II because of the perception of the nearness of death. People were more aware that life could be stopped at one unexpected moment. And what after life? I liked the scene at the end with the judgment and all people of all nations gathered. The phlegmatic judge (Abraham Sofaer-a typical British judge-), Doctor Reeves (Roger Livesey) defending Peter Carter (David Niven) and also June (Kim Hunter) against the American prosecutor Abraham Farlan (Raymond Massey I -there is a reason why it is an American-). It is all so imaginative! Michael Powell wrote, directed and produced this astonishing movie which is a real \"tour-de-force\". The message of the movie is clear: in the universe the law is the most important but on earth nothing goes beyond the love between humans. The way in which this beautiful story is told is far more interesting than any Hollywood-movie could ever make. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6645e766191144ce9e90030edd017c0c", "input": "Review: This is simply one of the finest renditions of Dicken's classic tale. The script very accurately follows the story originally penned by Dickens, and captures a perfect balance between a film atmosphere and a play atmosphere. Viewers fond of either format will find enough of the story rooted in their presentation style of choice.George C. Scott brings a delightfully realistic approach to the character of Scrooge, and is very convincing in the character development instigated by the visits of the ghosts. I found that he was able to win me over to the point where I sympathized with the old miser, something rarely done in other versions. The superb job done by the supporting actors add greatly to this production, which is simply the most enjoyable of all the Christmas Carol versions I have seen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-843a5a9d0c6041d8a89ddb71d60ad1f7", "input": "Review: When an actor has to play the role of an actor, fictional or factual, the task becomes much more difficult than playing a role. In A Double Life,Ronald Coleman surpassed himself as Anthony John, the tortured double personality. He put into that character all his talent and sincerity. The facial expressions, mannerisms,gait and stance spoke eloquently of what Anthony John was going through while playing Othello on stage. Coleman also did extremely well as a Shakespearean actor in those short scenes as Othello that were part of this gem of a movie. Closups of Coleman's face as Othello tortured by doubts about the fidelity of Desdemona were in themselves scenes worth watching.Add to that, his character's off stage desperation and only someone with Coleman's depth of acting perception can achieve. It was like watching Spenser Tracy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except this double role was much more profound and poignant. Shelly Winters looked so sweet, vulnerable and gorgeous at the same time and added her talent to the movie. It is believed that Ronald Coleman liked his role in this film above all others he played and went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor in 1947. I would see this movie repeatedly and never feel bored. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-053f83a233f1478685355a9fb7cdad57", "input": "Review: I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.\"666: The Child\" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than \"Godsend\") with scenes that rip from \"The Omen\" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way \"The Omen\" ends. Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22c47be787c44481b81f78c848ece1a5", "input": "Review: 12 year old Arnald Hillerman accidentally kills his older brother Eugene. His feelings are arrested by the fact that his family can not interact with him (or feel it is not the right thing to do). His ONLY refuge is his grandfather, who is the ONLY one who seems to have compassion on him. The Realism will captivate \"true-2-life\" movie lovers, but will not satisfy those that desire action & thrills. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a36c81a3cb248d29ba89fdfefda4b03", "input": "Review: This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest \"Downfall\" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest \"Brotherhood of War\" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dce57ab2585b4b52a8c4b4a3a3c356aa", "input": "Review: **Possible Spoilers Ahead**\tJason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on \"lab equipment\" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library music–the movie's high point–later turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb92328ce035495db12055c7f05a766e", "input": "Review: A lot of the user comments i have seen on the IMDB for this movie don't really do it justice. First of all, let me just say that this movie is not to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be a fun, yet stupid movie, that doesn't require one to think, only to enjoy it. If you watch this movie with the intent to see a masterpiece in either filmmaking or in humour, then you will be sorely disappointed. Yet, if you want to just watch a goofy movie with some talented actors/actresses, and some good catch-phrases, then you will enjoy it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13af8fad781e4859b026c110f13bb418", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.My rating was an 8. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc81c3c2802b4b6f97403df8f306c61c", "input": "Review: What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-732ee9f39acb45e499ec1dc965d8960d", "input": "Review: An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin. The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include \"I Got Rhythm,\" \"'S Wonderful,\" and \"Our Love is Here to Stay\". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the \"songbook\" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is \"The American in Paris\" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a \"real\" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, \"Who's Gene Kelly?\" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of \"Stairway to Paradise\"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's \"Concerto in F\" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, \"An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance.\" An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, \"SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good.\" The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for \"his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.\" It was his only Oscar. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-71e2ce5d5a344aa3ba278a21f146aca4", "input": "Review: I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af1090bcc8f74fae8288e9a5d4b4bcd7", "input": "Review: The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.Director Curtis (\"Night Tide,\" \"Ruby\") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?\" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for \"Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte\"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the \"Peanuts\" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original \"Friday the 13th\" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with \"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;\" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b16fa1a9e71544f89eaf2e619e8e72d4", "input": "Review: I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...Then I watched it...I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the \"action\" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...At this point I wept...I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the \"action\" was even weaker, and the \"visuals\" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...And then on a whole new level is \"McBain\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-25af784e23c64a2ca6742b2babb135e4", "input": "Review: I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the \"hype\" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of \"mostly true\" fiction is the way things really were there. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42ac081af02742bb8921e6f5ecb9cb51", "input": "Review: This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was \"chosen\" - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8afea0ebae5b46778cbc309c8faee5f2", "input": "Review: This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7c7c6779d214642b07bb1cdbc26f9af", "input": "Review: Should this be an American movie I'd rate it 7: we've seen this before. Being this an Argentinean movie, and being myself Argentine, I'd like to give it a 10, since it's the kind of quality I'd been hoping -rather than expecting- for. It's superb quality is astonishing, given all the limitations imposed by the 3rd World...I can't forget the scene when Díaz forces Silverstein's fiancé to confess -you know what I mean if you saw the movie. I think that's the key moment of the movie, not surprising maybe, yet original. That's when the real action begins.Before watching a movie I always try to gather some previous information. Being this a mainstream, satyric, commercial one, I press \"Play\" and make a suspension of reality and logic, I'd say the best state of mind to enjoy movies like this. It's impossible to discuss the plausibility of the whole plot, yet it's believable in a certain way. As for me, I couldn't stop laughing at every single joke and commentary -\"sos malo\" (\"you're mean\")... put in the mouth of Díaz, the greatest one.I'm rather tired of seeing movies \"designed for\" Peretti. I know he's a superb actor, but sometimes I feel his roles unfairly opaque the rest, Luis Luque's role in this case. I'm not very fond of Argentine television, so I haven't seen much work from Luque, but it's pretty obvious that he's an excellent performer. His physical role, his stares, his content attitude in this movie made me fall in love with his performance. I think his role should need some upgrading, just to let him show us how great he can be!I don't know whether Szifrón is planning to make a sequel or not. I know he won't make it if it's to follow the rule that \"second parts were never good\", so if he makes it, I'll surely go see it. And I hope that, in the future, takes into account the possibility to give Peretti's counterparts the same chances to develop their roles.Great movie, great performances, and lots of laughs! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46498a0ee40f486fa1f5f5181ce187b2", "input": "Review: The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase \"guaranteed to offend\" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9de6fac2500b4b048f187c48ad4f2513", "input": "Review: EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40b4977a99374dae9c6ae57e9fe54701", "input": "Review: The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.Director Curtis (\"Night Tide,\" \"Ruby\") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book \"Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?\" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for \"Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte\"), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the \"Peanuts\" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original \"Friday the 13th\" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with \"Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;\" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-304473854c1e4a62b44471650dc1d55c", "input": "Review: Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book \"Even Cowgirls Get the Blues\" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.I suggest reading the book! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-144b8abbe4874e9bb8ac7ab7ce937ccc", "input": "Review: I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant \"A Double Life\" and the funny \"Born Yesterday\" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as \"Adam's Rib\" and \"Pat And Mike\" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as \"Bachelor Mother\", \"Some Kind Of A Nut\", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. \"Ethnic\" jokes are now totally verboten, but \"fag\" jokes are still \"good, clean, family fun\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-936b2d4b0abb4b0f9634d62620e425a3", "input": "Review: I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian. fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy. I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank godNow our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey\"ish\".The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again. So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5484c3da47ad468e92c406089fd82897", "input": "Review: A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eeeda9078314feab1df50414ad1f2df", "input": "Review: Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d55ff3f3a2334fa687059d08af86aac5", "input": "Review: This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23541d4ed81d4b7ea803d1e04adaf3a9", "input": "Review: Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0c1ed88864d4b74b0698325fee80d0b", "input": "Review: I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cef7a6b3ad594d40a19afd370aa15e11", "input": "Review: I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series (\"The young and the restless\" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like \"You're dead now\". Then the main character says: \"If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me\". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): \"Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God\".Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c0ad54dd7fe4f7d94c21c82f59b8fdf", "input": "Review: Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed6e7cb30f3f454eabca7e6e3e3b495f", "input": "Review: If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his \"has-been\" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say \"yo, Adrian!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-25f38ee85a174dbbb92d3a571638a381", "input": "Review: This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc729dc3e74b41f685454598a6f50080", "input": "Review: Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's \"Of Human Bondage\"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a \"club foot\" (explained in the film).Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of \"Mildred\" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to \"WIPE MY MOUTH!\" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted. Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a \"write-in\" campaign for the 1934 \"Best Actress\" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were: 1. Claudette Colbert - \"It Happened One Night\" 2. Norma Shearer - \"The Barretts of Wimpole Street\" 3. Bette Davis - \"Of Human Bondage\" 4. Grace Moore - \"One Night of Love\" ******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a66fd3929bf40dd953f5fa29d70f1de", "input": "Review: There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture \"Witch Light,\" and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the \"Lady in Black.\"So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the \"actress\" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c276fbd9b62d45cb920b9607f8800d69", "input": "Review: Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors...... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d44a5825852433d8d299d723612ace0", "input": "Review: Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if \"Rambo\" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7e7bba8b8d34202995dc063c7d55281", "input": "Review: now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5527d5e3da3747e29473e87fa44d6115", "input": "Review: The beautiful story of Stardust is written by by Neil Gaiman (writer of MirrorMask) and it's really a good story. I think it would appeal to any Labyrinth, Princess Bride or 10th Kingdom fan and yet it's totally unique and stands up on it's own. And I feel the film adaptation of this story has a far better ending than what was presented in the original novel by Neil Gaiman. I won't spoil it for you.The main character, Tristan (Tristran in the novel), is the son of a mortal and a faerie slave kept by a witch in the realm of faerie. The story begins in a town near a wall that separates the magical world from the human world. When there is a falling star Tristan promises to retrieve it for a girl he is infatuated with. He is unaware that the star has taken the form of a girl in the fairy world and that there are others after her too. Three elderly witches who want to use her heart to become young again, and some bickering princes.It's a really good story. It has humor and magic and beautiful, surreal scenes and visuals. It's charming and I feel it can be watched by children and adults of all ages. It's simply magical. It's a true classic fairy tale, the likes of which I haven't seen in cinema since the 1980s. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7402612789142b6b455ba63ce37e037", "input": "Review: Just as \"ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD\" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen \"SAVING SILVERMAN\") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.Rating: 1/2* out of ***** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-137bd2191de542b6b4695f2a257b89ca", "input": "Review: Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).This is easily my second favourite football movie after \"Mike Bassett: England Manager\", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round). It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance... Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go \"Yup.\"I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbea195d943f41b7b386ea2baea4c45e", "input": "Review: I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or \"Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...\". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b5fe95f7427444d882cc242a28b1c87", "input": "Review: It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8\" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War! Never before has \"a nice game of chess\" seemed the better option.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-270c05909477462785db1cdb44e634a1", "input": "Review: Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa4fe060d77940e0875aee79aba16b98", "input": "Review: SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over (\"Crushed\", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies.\"And then he gets run over by a truck.\" Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aeb56a3d45ed4e999843647434b6b873", "input": "Review: If you enjoy Cleese & all the British 'Pythonesque' humour of the time, then this little gem is absolutely hilarious.Arthur Lowe is a real treat!I saw this with friends on TV when it first came out, and its classic quotes have formed a part of our jokes for 30 years, and will do forever! I have it on tape and it is continually appreciated.Perhaps some reviewers are taking it too seriously.I can't believe it is now only available in the US (NTSC of course), and not in UK, where it should be an essential part of the history of British humour!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ff7f13fbce54a9088fd0b36412c47b2", "input": "Review: There have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named \"this is not a laxitive\". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b0fb5dc77b1415294678fd9218eae0b", "input": "Review: \"Horrible People\" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b1d374606634cbb856c7682ea70cda1", "input": "Review: Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-122fcc2529f3463e96778d289158e0af", "input": "Review: I haven't yet read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night (though I've read other books of his, all outstanding pieces of satire and game-changing novel pieces). After seeing Keith Gordon's film adaptation of his book, it will be an immediate must-read in the near future. It's the kind of material that I'm sure if it wasn't made in 1995/96 as a film, it would be picked up right away today in the time period when many period post/present-Holocaust/WW2 movies are quite popular. Except that this is much darker, though even more resonant, about the nature of playing roles and the real underlying horror of living with life after war than say The Reader. It's about the very real danger of pretending in wartime, which is what being a spy in WW2 is really all about.It would be one thing if Mother Night had a script with a lot of emotional depth and complexity about the moral choice and constant role- even after the war ends- for Howard W. Cambpell (Nick Nolte), which is does. But it's also just a really strong feat of cinematic technique. Keith Gordon is not someone I usually think of as a director of really strong material (more-so I think back to him as an actor, oddly enough featured briefly with Vonnegut himself in Back to School), but this is a revelation. He takes the story of Campbell as a story of a fractured life: a German propaganda master (the \"only American left in Berlin\"), who is actually a spy for the Americans but can never have his identity revealed, and was before a playwright who really belonged to \"a nation of two\", himself and his wife (Sheryl Lee). It follows him from his prison cell, awaiting trial in Israel in 1961, as he writes his memoir and tells of his disillusionment about being a 'pretend' Nazi, and then in 1960 in semi-hiding in a New York apartment, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.Mother Night can be quite heavy, like on a level one might associate with the Pianist, but on another more emotional-cerebral level than the stark poetry of that film. Gordon, by way of Vonnegut, is trying to give us a strong look at a man who has nothing, except the memory (and then later a weird transposition) of his long lost love in a \"sister\" who has come back to him in NYC, so he's left to his own devices when he befriends a painter (Alan Arkin, very very good here), and then is found out as a Nazi-in-hiding by a white supremacist newsletter, leading wackos to his apartment. On the surface this should be just a straightforward spy story, but not a thing is straightforward. The 'something' of this man's life is staggering, but it's ultimately of his own choosing. Campbell is one of those characters that could be analyzed for hours on end, but the same conclusions might be reached (and, in a way, mirrors the line Goebbels said): the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. That is except for the select few who started the lie and know its secret and power.But oh, it would be one thing if it were just a wonderful and tragic-comic tale, or another if it were featuring some really fantastic performances (which is does: Nolte is at his very best here, and Sheryl Lee, who we might remember from Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer, stuns in multiple roles, especially in the scene when she reveals she's not 'really' Helga). It's also a gorgeously shot film, with brilliant lighting and shots that reflect the state of mind of the character, or just the starkness or sickening colors of the time (watch the scene where an old Campbell watches a film of his younger self spouting out a rant, the juxtaposition of faces is great). And the music selections rise the level of tragedy. It could be argued some of the music is too much, but at other times it elevates the material past its own usual dramatic dimensions and makes it operatic, solemn about human nature.It's not always an easy film to take emotionally, and some of the twists do have that tinge of \"whoa\" as in any spy story. But it's the subversion from Vonnegut that sticks through, the way of taking appearance and performance, of life imitating art imitating life imitating death, and making it into something worth remembering. I have no idea just yet if the book is better than the film (or the other way around), but at the moment it's hard for me not to recommend this to anyone looking for a masterpiece of post WW2/holocaust storytelling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a68405765cce4fbc876ff786dbdc7a18", "input": "Review: Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be \"healed\" through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8df8f963df3544cebe6fb2572f3ba656", "input": "Review: The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like \"lets separate.\" \"I am coming down to....\" do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-717c0f5ec63b4d52861afcea98998823", "input": "Review: Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a43a5e48047d4400b506bde34a5977cb", "input": "Review: I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, \"so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.\" No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: \"WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!\" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars \"Is this more to your liking!?\" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at \"The Awards\" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, \"I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top.\" I see I have already spent more time commenting on \"The Lonely Lady\" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca28903ddab9443282547fcd887c220a", "input": "Review: The title of this film nearly put me off watching it. Not being a Manchester United fan, the mere mention of Beckham was a bit off putting, however I put my prejudices behind me and I'm glad I did.I wasn't expecting much of a film, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film sped along with me never looking at my watch and I enjoyed every second of the film. If you liked East is East then you'll love this film. OK so the storyline is nothing new, and the classic storylines are contained within the film but it's all done very funnily, and with a breath of fresh air. The film moves very fast and keeps the audiance entertained. The occaisional funny moments are a good chuckle and not some poor attempt at humour, and best of all it's a good british comedy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1b265ed3c194c18b9e3c7d42469f08a", "input": "Review: The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b8710ad197943e0af7b8471bf8a0849", "input": "Review: I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e96f861d0bd24780959850d0c05aba57", "input": "Review: In my book \"Basic Instinct\" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the \"There is no smoking in this room\" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c44869a5fe249528af3acf306c83f72", "input": "Review: Relentlessly stupid, no-budget \"war picture\" made mainly to show off the attributes of the spectacular Eve Meyer--not a bad idea in itself--but that should be an embarrassment to everyone connected with it. Laughable \"script\", performances that wouldn't pass muster in an elementary-school Christmas pageant, inept \"action\" scenes, confused direction by the normally competent documentary director Louis Clyde Stoumen--who is apparently not quite sure if he's making a comedy, a philosophical treatise on the futility of war or a leering T&A (by early 1960s standards, anyway) travelogue of Eve Meyer's magnificent body--and a general air of shoddiness and incompetence. Worth seeing in order to watch Eve Meyer strut her stuff, but that's pretty much it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8810d423b05471cabc1b9966212e5c6", "input": "Review: I only wish that Return of the Jedi, have been directed by somebody else, I mean, there is far too much ewoks scenes, completely unnecessary. Besides this time our heroes look like different people: Princess Leia no longer fights with Solo, Luke looks boring, Darth Vader is not as evil as before, and Yoda just dies.But there are many extraordinary things going on this episode that i just can't hate it.SOME SPOILERS 1- Jabba the hut 2- The Sail Barge attack sequence. 3-The emperor (now that's evil) 4- The Speeders chase at the endor forest. 5-The Last Battle. 6-The Dark side seduction scene. 7-The return of Anakin to the good side of the force. 8- And the last celebration.Some of those are so good that they can bring tears to your eyes. If some scenes would have been cut, and another director was hired, this would have been as perfect as episode 4 and 5, but still is extraordinary. 9 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b81f22795e74a77b58063dbde74829b", "input": "Review: ....because if I was, I may have wished it was me being crucified on a wooden cross! I'm still trying to determine the plot of this movie - and I'm being \"generous\" that there was even a plot to begin with. As previously mentioned, it's a misnomer on the cover of the DVD that Richard Dreyfuss is actually the star. He was barely in the movie. And if he was indeed \"frustrated\" as the back cover indicated he was, well, that's probably because he said YES to be in this disaster of a movie and couldn't get out of it! The movie really seemed to focus on Jared Martin, and what his role in the movie was supposed to be, other than the extreme close -ups, was not as big of a mystery as to what Gene Barry's role actually was - or wasn't. And speaking of \"big\"...whomever had the bright idea to fit Gene Barry in the Humpty Dumpty attire, which showcased his trousers literally pulled up to his chin, should be sentenced to hard time by watching this movie stoned sober. I could go on and on about how horrendous this movie was, from the dialogue not matching the \"actors'\" mouths (think Clutch Cargo), to the erratic jumping from scene to scene (again, being generous even calling the frames of pictures \"scenes\"), to the lack of a plot.... However, if you're into bad early 70s genre and if you're in a cottage in Michigan with nothing but this movie and a box of kid & cat pictures, I recommend having a good bottle of wine before you embark on this weird ride of a movie because you'll be thankful that you may not remember it the next day! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb3327864ef842adbf86c02533de4f61", "input": "Review: Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ae8095c79b84bf9bd15e77a5efa5291", "input": "Review: With no fault to the actors (they all put on great performances), the overall story was not very well executed. The movie opens with a great zinger: a crazy old guy forces a young Aborigine girl's car off the road. But then, we're forced to endure 40 minutes of character development with an entirely new group of characters ... and we don't know why until the 40 minutes are up. It turns out that they are the ones who eventually discover the girl's body ... and the story progresses from there.While the story does pick up at that point, it really goes nowhere. After 2 hours, I asked myself: was there a point to this, or was it just to see the characters struggle with accusations of racism and stupidity of how they handled the discovery? The story was ultimately unsatisfying and felt unfinished. While it is well acted, there's not a strong enough backbone in the film to warrant recommending it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5876a6f264404bce85d6926dd96b40c8", "input": "Review: It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line \"God, you are so disGUSting\" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e0b3405f5f94398a7fd003e5760c716", "input": "Review: Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed232c353e194381bd5675c9e42d30bb", "input": "Review: ...let me count the ways.1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. 9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.BOMB out of **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5474a2b989194eebbb6c5cfe8f34b4f1", "input": "Review: Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... \"exterminator\" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable \"exterminator\" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days. The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78f748b8ee6340a885b96f07f0b0b2fe", "input": "Review: IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote \"character?\") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-577f7896acaa44c9abc2243a03a36c68", "input": "Review: Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at \"The Wedding\".This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the \"American Pie Presents\" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d77370dbeeda4adb980749378881ae2a", "input": "Review: I was reviewing some old VHS tapes I have and came across The TV show John Denver & The Muppets A Christmas Together.This made me go to my computer and look it up to see if I could find a DVD version of this show to buy. I was disappointed not to be able to find it yet on DVD. The show aired in 1979 and was a delightful show. I have the record and the CD but I would love to buy a DVD version of this show. The tape is old and picture quality is pretty good but fading, the sound is not as good as the CD. There is also a few other songs not put on the CD. As a Fan of John Denver and of the Muppets, a DVD of this show would really be a good seller. If you don't have the CD it is a wonderful Chritmas collection of songs taken from that show. The album is also good if you can find it and still have a record player to play it on. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-183b1113d72545a4b45cb6f9ac4db8f4", "input": "Review: If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c0a3e08774944b5825cf9e8fbfbbd5c", "input": "Review: This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! \"The Odd Couple\" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's \"The Odd Couple\" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-415a1db3653e4b888e184238d8834117", "input": "Review: What the hell is this? \"Kooky drama\"? \"Lawyers in Loony Tunes Land\"? The world's thinnest, most duck-faced actress (even more duck-faced and anorexic than Michelle Pfeiffer) overacts her bony butt off, making cretinous grimaces that would shame Bugs Bunny, in one of the most animated non-animated TV series ever. This is also the most annoying one-hour-format TV show ever, hence the worst.All the men act like pansies, and I for one refuse to believe that even hip big-city shysters are all as delta-male-like as this sorry (short) bunch. Wuss Peter MacNicol manages to be even more irritating than Calista Flockofducks with his fake Hollywood \"shshshs\" speech impediment: it's the sort of pseudo-inability to pronounce the letter \"S\" by turning it into a moronic \"SH\" that the likes of Jon Shtewart and Christian Shlater also practice with zeal. Watching MacNicol talk, I always wonder how come his jaw doesn't dislocate... Human facial anatomy was never meant to support the pronouncing of the \"SH\" sound more than three times per second. He is a medical wonder.This badly conceived and written legal-drama/comedy hodgepodge also features some very 90s PC. It has POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written with huge, neon letters. Is there anything more unrealistic than a bunch of LAWYERS being full of ideals, high principles, and moral fiber? Laughable, but that's the way defense lawyers have been portrayed in Hollywood since its inception. After all, what is more noble than defending a murderer, a rapist, or a thief? When a TV series as retarded as \"Ally McBeak\" starts preaching to America about how it should run the country, then it must be time for Paris Hilton to become President. \"Ally McQuack\" is both a product of recent and large-scale Western dumbing-down and a perpetrator of it.Those supposed touches of \"eccentricity\", like the UNBELIEVABLY annoying musical numbers, are unconvincing and embarrassingly unfunny. This is no Monty Python. Whatever \"new\" the talent-free makers of this garbage were aiming for, they failed with honours. \"Ally McBeak\" is a highly commercialized TV venture aimed at indiscriminating yuppies, bored housewives, and bipolar lawyers. It's yet another dull \"objection overruled sustained your Honour may I call the witness\" legalistic baloney that the American audiences seem to eat up with relish for some strange reason... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-95a5d9977f664a88a2ed09707edc02b0", "input": "Review: this movie has a great message,a impressive cast, ellen burstyn, samantha mathis, jodelle ferland( was 4 years old when she made this movie) ellen burstyn and jodelle ferland have both been nominated for best actress in a tv drama at the up-coming emmy awards in new york, peter masterson-director- has been nominated best director tv drama at the emmy awards also. april 1, 2001, jodelle ferland 'Won', best actress in a tv drama, at the young artist awards, in studio city, ca. i can see why they have 3 nominations. mermaid is a true story, during the cridits they have the real family on the set, something you don't see often. you can find mermaid at all blockbuster video stores. do watch it,you'll be glad you did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-708726ad61044be5ad6b7ed5b31c774e", "input": "Review: I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream \"NOTICE ME!\" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. \"MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!\" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.And I want my 30 minutes back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f910e5b5d52426ca6546582ebb408f1", "input": "Review: Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-345d1444001246b79ae20a863a8be699", "input": "Review: ba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c14c04edaba94e53937a0d3f38763d5a", "input": "Review: This is one of the best films I have seen in years! I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but she is excellent as Emma Woodhouse. Alan Cumming is superb as Reverand Elton, and Emma Thompson's sister, Sophie, is hysterical as Miss Bates. And check out the gorgeous Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley; what a gentleman! Whoever said you need sex and violence in a movie to make it good has never seen Emma. I think that is what separates it from so many others--it's classy.If you're looking for a film that you can watch with the whole family, or looking for a romance for yourself, look no further. Emma is that movie. With a beautiful setting, wonderful costumes, and an outstanding cast (have I mentioned the gorgeous Jeremy Northam?), Emma is a perfect ten! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-67cb7f45e8be4c1aa31584433a5bd2b1", "input": "Review: UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is \"based\". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6db88b008283480586a2707f36f096bf", "input": "Review: I have complained to ABC about the cancellation of six degrees. If enough people do the same then it could be enough to bring this fabulous show back to life!! Just go onto the official site and the rest is simple enough. I do not understand why this show has been cancelled. What a fantastic show, cast and characters. The whole concept is gripping viewing! I am astounded that my favourite show is over after just one series. Why is this? Six degrees is phenomenal, it's better than so many other TV programmes out there! Until I heard they were stopping it from a friend it hadn't even occurred to me that this might happen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c77f8d60d259420fa756954fb83bb139", "input": "Review: This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69b7798a146546e5bc8f67ccc363f22b", "input": "Review: Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the \"more\" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some \"humor\" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western \"serious\" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.The film is also genuinely pretty \"suspicious\" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this \"table brutality\" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how \"uncut\" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk \"Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)\" Wong!Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c4a4f42c2784a579871d5b697394461", "input": "Review: I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a \"friend\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-631862a89bfe41ec828812bf873dd80e", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.My rating was an 8. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9603f6f3c7974e72af72c27bdbe64d21", "input": "Review: Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be6323ece9d74ba68163941adfd379e5", "input": "Review: This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to \"dance out\" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01b6cbe2aefa48339331a4d37625960d", "input": "Review: A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fcfecbe0f1a4104b94e77bd28f29efb", "input": "Review: If any style of film could be called my \"guilty pleasure\", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. \"Stardust\" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.--PolarisDiB Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15e52d9ff39841eaa03a46bd05c5c30e", "input": "Review: It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79ca88ba071e435baf47c7d85e214df9", "input": "Review: The wonderfully urbane Ronald Coleman is show-cased here as in few other of his films. He is literally in every scene and this comical movie remains fresh because of him, not in spite of him. He is handsome, witty and very clever here as he remains a step ahead of his wandering, lovely wife--played perfectly by Anna Lee. The movie is based on a french play and brings all the best qualities of that farce. Most of the supporting cast is well known, at least by face if not name...and are absolutely perfect for this very funny film. The fantastic Mr. Coleman is a combination of Sean Connery and Clark Gable as he stays a step ahead of the other characters. His multi-talents can be further appreciated in the classic \"Lost Horizon\" which every film buff must see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e73022b9086141a3810052308d99d128", "input": "Review: Criticism of the film EVENING, based on the novel by Susan Minot and adapted for the screen by Minot and Michael Cunningham, has been harsh, so harsh that it may have discouraged many viewers from giving the film a try. The primary criticism has centered on the fact that very little happens in this film about a dying woman's fretting over a mistake she made one summer in her youth, that famous actors were given very minor roles, that the entire production was over-hyped, etc. For this viewer, seeing the film on a DVD in the quiet of the home, a very different reaction occurred.Ann Grant Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) is dying in her home by the ocean and her medication and memories allow her to share a man's name - 'Harris' - with her two grown daughters Nina (Toni Colette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson). As her daughters sit at her bedside Ann relives a particular summer when she was a bridesmaid for her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) - a marriage both Ann (Claire Danes as the youthful Ann) and Lila's alcoholic brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) objected to, feeling that Lila was simply marrying a man of her class instead of the boy she had loved - Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), her housekeeper's son who had become a physician. Harris, Buddy, Lila, and Ann are woven together in a series of infatuations and romances that have been kept secret until now, 50 years later, as Ann is dying. The older Lila (Meryl Streep) visits Ann at the end and the secrets are revealed: 'there are no such things as mistakes - life just goes on.' The film is a delicate mood piece and the script by Minot and Cunningham is rich in atmosphere and subtle life lessons. Yes, there are gaps in the story that could have used more explanation, but in order to maintain the aura of nostalgia of a dying lady's words, such 'holes' are understandable. The film is graced by the presence of not only Redgrave, Richardson (Redgrave's true daughter), Collette, Gummer (Streep's true daughter), Meryl Streep, Claire Danes, Eileen Atkins, Glenn Close, Hugh Dancy and Patrick Wilson, but also with an ensemble cast of brief but very solid performances. The setting is gorgeous (cinematography by Gyula Pados) and the musical score is by the inimitable Jan A.P. Kaczmarek. Lajos Koltai (\"Being Julia') directs. Judge this film on your own.... Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dabc8441ee9645119908298f2ddb8d23", "input": "Review: Human Body --- WoW.There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....Our days are limited...Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...Thanks and Regards. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ad0b480afd2432dbbfe4d8fbd224223", "input": "Review: I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond \"art\". His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2972aa2d3e0c4f5b81d4c3992c384669", "input": "Review: Skippy from Family Ties goes from clean-cut to metal kid in this fairly cheesy movie. The film seems like it was made in response to all those upset parents who claimed metal music was turning their kids evil or making them kill themselves - except in this one a dead satanic metal star is trying to come back from the grave (using Skippy to help out). And while the plot is corny and cliche, the corniness (for example, an evil green fog taking off a girl's clothes)and the soundtrack are what make the movie so hilarious (and great). And of course, there's nothing like Ozzy Osbourne playing a preacher who's asking what happened to the love song :). Definitely a movie for having a few friends over for a good laugh. And while you're at it, make it a double feature with Slumber Party Massacre 2 - there's an \"evil rocker\" (as stated on the video box)driller killer in black leather w/fringe. A must see for cheesy movie fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d92e3492fd2467890a12f2ecfa40491", "input": "Review: I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c10cdd0770c404db6c5d8705f175198", "input": "Review: An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58429d5aee654c0d973487121093c5a0", "input": "Review: Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42ed930565be43e79db3043e37e89316", "input": "Review: This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a3eb7cbbabc432b897e1fc329bf2544", "input": "Review: This has to be the worst, and I mean worst biker movie ever made! And that's saying a lot because the line of stinkers is long and smelly!Now at least we know what happened to Ginger after she was rescued from Gilligan's Island! A frightened looking Tina Louise(she was probably afraid someone would see this mess!)is a stranded motorist who is tormented by the most repulsive motorcycle gang in film history. But, don't worry fans! Batman, I mean Adam West as a hick-town doctor comes to the rescue! Pow! Crush! Boom! Holy Toledo Batman! The only good points of this \"bomb\" are some cute women, some laughable fight scenes, and the still \"sexy\" Tina Louise! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-423f10a4dbbe4ac3b75662cc8290c911", "input": "Review: I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d9915101b85467ca8f6ba05c3029493", "input": "Review: One of the best \"Amitabh comeback\" movies I liked. This was the phase when Govinda was going strong with Dhawan. The songs were awesome and totally as we call it \"masti\" type. An evergreen entertainer with the likes of the multifaceted Anupam Kher chipping in. The story line has a lot of hilarious twists and turns as is known for David Dhawan's potboilers. With a timely appearance by Mrs.Madhuri \"Nene\" Dixit, it was a total riot towards the end. It was great to see Amit perform with such force and humor after a long exile. Although some may consider it a typical \"Bollywood Masala\" movie, I would watch it any day. I am giving it an easy 8 out of 10 just for being pure Bollywood. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce3685979ea44a2abe466bcba13f36c6", "input": "Review: This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is \"unintentionally funny\" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6effa7ccebe8441697037498456b5bcf", "input": "Review: (David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the \"Additional Details\" his usual \"Plot Keywords\" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women ! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f2256acba9f46b2ac18d127d2bb0e7c", "input": "Review: A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but \"hilarious\"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c012ca004204a248df722a526fd003c", "input": "Review: I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d52c0cf867af4b6cb343d5ba4409819a", "input": "Review: No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32cba3038ff44fc693dfc3ed94d1811c", "input": "Review: The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous – summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called \"Taboo\", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): \"Taboo – Jogando Com o Assassino\" (\"Taboo – Playing With the Killer\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-17908376d01e4f668f6e70d4b7fef299", "input": "Review: (Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, \"Love in the Time of Money\" is a \"good start\". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth \"Angels in America\" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-076df51c2f094a3396567b32e2e2e076", "input": "Review: Unfortunately I made a mistake and I paid 7 Euros at the movie theater to watch this shallow meaningless movie. My points;Film is based on 2 things;1) Ethnical point of View: As it happens on most of the American Films, the writer thinks itself as an expert after learning 2 or 3 things about the Asian culture. But unfortunately it is not enough. Knowing kunefe and 2 names of other foods doesn't make a person understand a culture. For example shaving is the sign of clean life in Asia but everyone was trying the girl to stop that. Lebanese people are Christian (Ok they got that) and their cultural forms and beliefs and approaches are completely different from other Arabic countries. The main difference between eastern and western culture is we don't make ethnocentrism. So we don't judge people after their first question about our life as the father figure did in all of the film. 2) Sexual revolution of a girl: There is nothing much to say about this. Show me 10 girls which had these on their sexual awakening than I will say that I am wrong.I wrote this comment because the producers are promoting the film in the black humor genre. Please watch Dr.Strangelove and understand the meaning of black humor. A black humor has to reflect the truth and has to focus the audience to the funny parts of it. Where is the truth? Where is the meaning about the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e518a0a075d46399114e93e0d04acc2", "input": "Review: Michael Curtiz directed this 1930 very-stylish whodunit from a script by Robert Presnell Sr., Robert N. Lee and Peter Mine. The original novel they adapted was \"The Kennel Murder Case\", perhaps from a writer's standpoint the best of the Philo Vance mysteries by the strange S.S. Van Dine. Vance was a long-worded and superior detective genius, and his character being assigned to William Powell probably meant the executives at Warner Brothers were aware of the possibility that in less-engaging hands this detective might alienate viewers. Fortunately they assigned suave William Powell first to the character.; later he was played by Basil Rathbone, Warren William, and Paul Lukas before being consigned to \"B\" picture status.The other question as always with Warner Brothers executives is why they chose Vance as a character; their penchant was to choose men who operated outside the law, with no apparent discrimination between a vicious murderer and a champion of individual rights against all comers. This film has a despicable villain who gets murdered, and a claustrophobically challenging locale inside an apartment complex. The characters are unarguably unusually well-realized, the direction rather good and unusually swift-paced; and except for a darkish B/W look, the film avoids the comedic asides, superfluous characters and irrelevant dialogue characteristic of many early detective entries. Jack Okey did the good art direction. The music by Berhard Kaun is serviceable; Orry-Kelly did the costumes. William Reese provided the mostly-indoor cinematography. In the interesting cast, Powell is THE Philo Vance of his time, mostly sober-minded with just a hint of sardonic humor here and there. Eugene Palette is better than usual playing very straight as an admiring police partner to Vance, with his very professional timing. The other actor who comes off best is handsome Paul Cavangh, very effective as always in what was written as a red herring part. Mary Astor is attractive but at this point in her career she talked a bit too fast to be as effective as she later proved. Also in the cast were Helen Vinson as the villain's woman, Jack La Rue, Ralph Morgan (best known as Frank Morgan's brother), Robert Barrat as the villain everyone has cause to kill, Archer Coe, and Frank Conroy as his likable brother with Robert McWade as the D.A.; quirky and funny Etiienne Girardot has a delightfully witty part as the funny little forensics doctor who comes onto the crime scene. James lee as the abused Chinese servant is excellent and intelligent. The story breaks into four parts. First there is shad doings at a dog show, where Vance, Coe and Cavanagh are all showing West Highland terriers. Cavanagh's dog is killed, by Coe, to prevent him winning the title over his own entry. The second portion of the scene involves a leave-taking; someone is confused enough by who has gone where, after Coe parts from his girl friend, Vinson, to murder his nice brother by mistake. Enter Vance, to find out who did in Archer Coe in a locked room and how, with the help of Palette; the romantic difficulties are straightened out, the Chinese servant is exonerated, we find out who broke the expensive vase, who will marry whom, how Archer Coe was done in and why the butler did not do it--but someone else with a good excuse did. This is a more-than-good little mystery, which skilled Hungarian-born director Curtiz took quite seriously. He used wipes, swift cuts, changes of camera angle and alternations between straightforward and daring camera-work to achieve variety, interest and a sustained pace. Many writers, critics and experts, myself included, consider this to be the best of the Vance projects, although others are estimable as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff4dffcc958f497eb6dd634ed37b9644", "input": "Review: I loved this movie since I was 7 and I saw it on the opening day. It was so touching and beautiful. I strongly recommend seeing for all. It's a movie to watch with your family by far.My MPAA rating: PG-13 for thematic elements, prolonged scenes of disastor, nudity/sexuality and some language. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6331641c3444b40b052bdba2ab432b2", "input": "Review: The Gang of Roses. \"Every rose has its thorns.\"A mix of old western and hip hop, blended perfectly together. The clothing styles, the scenery, and the plot are all suited to what the director wanted. Plot - in five years, they robbed twenty-seven banks and then vanished without a trace. Now, a small western town is under siege, and one of the first victims is Rachel's sister. The Rose Gang is ready to ride again. And this time it's personal.Rachel (Michael Calhoun), Chastity (Lil' Kim), Maria (Lisaraye), Zang Li (Marie Matiko) and Kim (Stacey Dash), five gunslinging women who split up after five years of riding together. When Rachel's sister is killed, she ends up rounding up her friends once again and riding on a trail of vengeance. A good, muck around version of western. (If you've seen Bad Girls, well this is a little bit better in the ways of the female characters).I gave it 10/10 because the characters, plot and scenery made it for me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fdd0b934dd74d46a5a30fa9dfc77d01", "input": "Review: I can't understand why they decided to release this film to introduce the American audience to the dynamo that is Jet Li. Fist of Legend would have been a much better choice. Anyway, Black Mask isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great either. The final fight sequence is well staged by Yuen Woo Ping who went on to coordinate The Matrix. But the English release suffers from rough editing and dubbing. (I'm begging the Hollywood studios to release these films uncut with subtitles.)Jet Li shows his characteristic charisma in the title role and Francoise Yip has a cool but brief role as the female 701.Black Mask has a strange goth style that adds some interest but it is overloaded with gun battles and explosions. More focus on Li's fantastic physical skills were in order. Black Mask is a decent film but do yourself a favor and pick up Fist of Legend if you want to see a tremendous film that really shows Li's skills. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ace9931266d64698862f1240ade45ea6", "input": "Review: Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccc62e1614e34fb38bee6ec8c62b712f", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b30c44e4f3314313888028f74b922f1f", "input": "Review: I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb7589286a2444bd895b137d41b34c4d", "input": "Review: A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line \"I really appreciate it.\" is now iconic to me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d6be73e646b4427b337627fcbd2e6ae", "input": "Review: The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the \"Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!\" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9ac5529701541fcb0ec05f168d4d494", "input": "Review: Stan & Ollie become SAPS AT SEA when their wayward little boat is commandeered by a vicious murderer.The Boys are wonderful in this feature, which starts out with one of their most hilarious set pieces, the horn factory. Always a few steps out of sync with the rest of Creation, Laurel & Hardy inhabit a world where icy radios & bedded billy goats are the rule, not the exception. With its brief length, the film is more in style with their classic short subjects, which explains its episodic nature.Only the Boys get screen credit, but movie mavens will recognize other familiar faces: James Finlayson appears as a loony doctor, Richard Cramer does full justice to his bad guy role, sweet Mary Gordon plays the Boys' perplexed neighbor. That's Charlie Hall as the apartment house desk clerk and silent screen comic Ben Turpin portrays a most peculiar plumber.One of the film's script writers was silent comedian Harry Langdon.Stan & Ollie are the main focus, however. Watching Hardy go berserk at the sound of a horn, or Laurel's antics with bananas, for instance, reminds the viewer why these fellows remain absolute cinematic giants. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4d339e0dd494150af20a9cecbd18a09", "input": "Review: I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.A true gem. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fae5faa3fda4ca9a879a9efb8e537b3", "input": "Review: I thought Hugh O'Conor was astounding as the young Christy Brown, and really deserved greater recognition for his role. I couldn't believe how well he played the part. Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant too. My favourite scene is where the boys are playing football and Christy uses his head to stop the goals and then kicks the penalty! Amazing performances by the two Christys (and other also). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1616fd6b41d843d7b631707c05b05298", "input": "Review: Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3eabdad887047a3a119808f0c4c02c0", "input": "Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into \"that sort of thing,\" I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only \"unifying\" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the \"authorities\" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the \"story\" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word \"Pollack\" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as \"Pollack.\" And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-605725d20eaa46cb82f54d8d40c2ffb3", "input": "Review: Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5370fd39c924c09a0a54efd89b3aa9c", "input": "Review: If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-128f42bc1fa14db4b34d675f6fe8d378", "input": "Review: I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones. The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.I recommend \"The Sea is Watching\" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1345b3def6da4cd68afb6fe0168d26ba", "input": "Review: There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b86369d4925470fb762a81d43df26c3", "input": "Review: saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f468369474d4c53bccfa10a999fe416", "input": "Review: Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the \"man-in-the-mac\" and also \"Fade into Murder\".Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to \"Last Salute to the Commodore\") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes. For Columbo completionists only. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94bd80b224d64da69e8c592528ec119c", "input": "Review: I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of \"you know what\". Dirt on the \"mystery machine\" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b68dd2e96ca477fae2c3ad36b29db73", "input": "Review: One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of \"The Magnificent Seven\" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f20b45f1e5b840129ee628474ca2ce7b", "input": "Review: I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f10cab2ad6347eab07f60e98d3f1af3", "input": "Review: What a wonderful movie, eligible for so many labels it never gets: Science fiction, film-noir, with a script and dialog of high intelligence which assumes an educated, cultured audience.....the kind of English language movie only done in pre-1960 England (and shown only in USA art movie houses when it first arrived), and never, ever done in the USA.Main characters in The Man In The White Suit(1951) starring Sir Alec Guiness and Joan Greenwood routinely use polysyllabic, science reference words like \"polymer\" and discuss and explain concepts of chemistry like \"long chain molecules\" and then communicate the importance of these to the average man and the benefits science provides him.The Man In The White Suit (1951) is the opposite of the video-game explosion movies which now (2009) dominate world cinema, and certainly dominate major USA cinema.......it's a carefully acted, intelligently told story delivered by gifted and believable educated English actors (who play educated, accomplished people), and it's all done with comedy, charm, pathos, and sense of irony which ancient Greek dramatists would have approved of.Everybody should see this movie, and someday, somehow, some worthy filmmaker and his supporters should make another like it.It's wonderful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6c5a0b2246143c7b2dcde819980f682", "input": "Review: Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. \"A Walk on the Moon\" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the \"blouse salesman\" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.Poor Diane Lane, she went to make \"Unfaithful\" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-798d5bf04cfa4c19a109fdec36f4057c", "input": "Review: Ahh, Talespin! What can I say that hasn't already been said about this great show? Nothing! This is without a doubt one of the most well-written shows I've ever encountered, live-action or animation. The newer stuff is way too dumbed down for my tastes, and some of the \"mature\" stuff I have to shoo kids out of the room for. But not Talespin.The stories are engaging and very plausible. Some of them could even be stretched out to an hour or two for a movie. Episodes like Stormy Weather and Her Chance to Dream are very dramatic while still being enjoyable for kids and adults alike. Then there are the pure comedy episodes such as the Bluest of the Baloo Bloods and Stuck on you, where the emphasis is on hilarity. I can laugh myself to tears in a few choice ones.The drama aspect is very lacking in most shows nowadays(at least, those which aren't specifically geared toward it), especially in cartoons. In the episode Stormy Weather for instance, Kit Cloudkicker decides that he's going to join an air circus, but Baloo believes that it would be too dangerous. In the biggest fight of the episode, Baloo yells at Kit to stay away from Daring Dan, to which Kit screams \"NO! You can't tell me what to do! YOUR'RE *NOT* *MY* *DAD*!\" and buries his face in his pillow. The next day he leaves for the air circus. This kind of drama is a rarity in a cartoon, and would be most welcome in the ones created nowadays.The Characters have a lot of depth to them. Baloo is pretty much the way he is in The Jungle Book, plus or minus a few degrees of laziness. Rebecca is a cunning business woman whose ideas on getting money, while good in theory, are seldom good in practice. Molly is a cute little girl, but you can't let that deceive you. She can be a real hellion sometimes. Kit Cloudkicker is a darker character than the rest. He doesn't trust adults much unless they appeal to him, and he has a tendency to break off relationships. Watch his expression in Plunder and Lightning when he grabs the grappling hook: he looks as though he's prepared to put it right through a pirate.In the end, it's the drama combined with the very real chemistry between the characters that makes this show #1 in my book. The relationship between Baloo and Kit is very real, almost father and son. This is demonstrated well in All's Whale That Ends Whale when Baloo takes Kit's word for it that Seymour is abusing the animals in his aquarium instead of siding with the other adults. Baloo and Becky's relationship is also realistic, due to Baloo's motivation for working comes from wanting to buy back the ol' Sea Duck, not necessarily a desire to help Rebecca. But something tells me that if he did get the Duck back he'd still do jobs for Rebecca.The Sea Duck, not to mention all the other planes in the series, is pretty realistically designed. The plane's functions don't change once throughout the series(continuity like that is hard to come by also), and unlike most other \"super-planes\" of other cartoons, it doesn't have one single weapon on board(unless you count mangoes!), and relies instead on it's cunning pilot's great skill to get out of trouble. It's hard to think of a hero vehicle that doesn't have some sort of gun turret, laser cannon, or even a handgun somewhere on board. And the fact that they use their heads to get out of trouble is so hard to find in a cartoon nowadays. Plus it's just such a darn cool design!This is definitely the best cartoon. Ever. Period. Definitely worth all ten stars! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec808f60ca104db38664b5fe9a3a66c1", "input": "Review: We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2c93824b4624e1ebd6594343ad84458", "input": "Review: but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06369ee10e7f4c51982862b890558c84", "input": "Review: Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name. The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with. Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad2422af5da2430c8b883a4ae47a4554", "input": "Review: (David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the \"Additional Details\" his usual \"Plot Keywords\" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women ! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bf1db602f3044a9ac9875e7a0933f45", "input": "Review: Rip off of \"Scream\" or especially \"I know what you did last summer\", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8b7ed469e064ed886bb896f6fdb1dbd", "input": "Review: Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: * From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b49154d7e29436998184c60f7a7e46e", "input": "Review: When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall \"Craig Manor\", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line \"I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U.\" Whew!THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla \"She Creature\" English, 50s hunk John \"Revenge Of The Creature\" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess \"Mr. Susan Hayward\" Barker, Kathleen \"It Came From Outer Space\" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a08db6949fec4f6cadbf114310b30ba0", "input": "Review: THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2516f0229fd424a9420d3fd137c16c1", "input": "Review: Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield) is nearing the completion of his rejuvenation formula, with the ability to reverse ageing, after twenty years. Ollie and Stan are the chimney sweeps that arrive to do their job, and very quickly Ollie wants to get away from Stan making mistakes. Ollie goes to the roof to help with the other end of the brush at the top of the chimney, but Stan in the living room ends up pushing the him back in the attic. After breaking an extension, Stan gets a replacement, a loaded gun, from off the wall, and of course it fires the brush off. Stan goes up to have a look, and Ollie, standing on the attic door of the roof, falls into the greenhouse. Stan asks if he was hurt, and Ollie only answers with \"I have nothing to say.\" Ollie gets back on the roof, and he and Stan end up in a tug and pull squabble which ends up in Ollie falling down and destroying the chimney. Ollie, hatless, in the fireplace is hit on the head by many bricks coming down, and the butler Jessup (Sam Adams) is covered in chimney ash smoke, oh, and Ollie still has nothing to say to Stan. The boys decide to clean up the mess, and when Stan tears the carpet with the shovel, Ollie asks \"Can't you do anything right\", and Stan replies \"I have nothing to say\", getting the shovel bashed on his head. As Ollie holds a bag for Stan to shovel in the ashes, they get distracted by a painting on the wall, and the ashes end up down Ollie's trousers, so Stan gets another shovel bashed on the head. Professor Noodle finishes his formula, and does a final test on a duck, with a drop in a tank of water, changing it into a duckling. He also shows the boys his success, turning the duckling into an egg, and he next proposes to use a human subject, i.e. his butler. While he's gone, the boys decide to test the formula for themselves, but Ollie ends up being knocked by Stan into the water tank with all the formula. In the end, what was once Ollie comes out, an ape, and when Stan asks him to speak, all Ollie ape says is \"I have nothing to say\", and Stan whimpers. Filled with wonderful slapstick and all classic comedy you could want from a black and white film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Very good! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba34e00b925b4444abfda64170dfbd79", "input": "Review: You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. \"Don't give up your day job\" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. (\"You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...\")This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. (\"All I can think about is food,\" he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By \"evil\" perhaps I mean \"inexplicable\" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: \"I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT...\" [big dramatic pause] \"...I don't think you'd like it at all.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e306e773a2d34a5fb86894cd95c958de", "input": "Review: Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d81068991c684f20a301f4262523ad6c", "input": "Review: I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6615d9691dad4c9687a70cdea5e85e7d", "input": "Review: I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b7a26174ee345ae87d3bc1c06af6c74", "input": "Review: I came to NEW PORT SOUTH expecting a surrogate movie about the Columbine school massacre similar to Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and certainly the synopsis in the TV guide stating that a student sociopath rebels against the system did give me that impression but this is a very boring movie where little happens so consider yourself warned The story is about Maddox , a Chicago high school student who decides to strike back at what he perceives to be an authoritarian regime . The major problem is that the character is underwritten and the actor who plays him Blake Shields is unable to embellish any script deficiencies . You have the gut feeling that Maddox should have the evil charisma of Hitler , Saddam or Bin Laden but he never comes across as anything more than a petulant truculent teenager and it's impossible to believe he could rally any disciples . The subtext of you overthrow one manipulative authoritarian regime only to replace it with another manipulative regime is too obvious which means NEW PORT SOUTH is an entirely unconvincing drama that's not worth going out of your way to see Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d57186a3fb144ef0bba5408c7e144aab", "input": "Review: If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws: 1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10) 2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10) 3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10) 4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10) 5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10) 6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10) I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.(7/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac117832fc1d4d1fa3ee54ba3ac04186", "input": "Review: Make no mistake, Maureen O'Sullivan is easily the most gorgeous Jane ever, and there will never be one more gorgeous. She is visually stunning. That aside, it takes more than a beautiful woman to make a good film. This is a great film. It not only has the classic Tarzan aura, but also the feel of the continuing saga. We become involved with the two white hunters who search for ivory, one of them in love with Jane, the other, a roguish catalyst whose character may be one of the best defined and best examined in movie history.And these characterizations are what make this great action flick stand out as a classic. There is the uncomfortable racism which is depicted. However, the Africans are depicted as individuals, and at the end, two even become more heroic than the white hunters, and stand out as such. In fact, the one not named evokes probably more sympathy from the audience than any other characters. The finale, also, is one of the reasons to enjoy this movie. The great lion attack has never been duplicated, and the horror is well implied with character reactions more so than a modern gore movie would do with graphic depiction. If I left anything out, it is because I do not want to soil the picture for those who haven't seen it. But it is everything you could want in a movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e84ae80b26844d3b81bb20a39060b393", "input": "Review: I have lost count of how many reviews I've written on Slaughter High. I've read a lot of bad ones and I will say right now this is a fantastic movie. Simon Scuddamore made his fame in a short time for his well known suicide, and even though this was his only film, he is what made the movie so great. At first I did not know anything about Simon until I read a review about his suicide. Then I found out due to the current webpage at www.IMDb.com he was born in 1957, in Dayton, Ohio. Simon may have played the most pathetic character known to man, but his real life self certainly had their strenghths and weaknesses. He did a good acting job, who can disagree? I always wondered how he felt showing himself naked in a movie. Must have been pretty embarrassing to say the least. I first saw this movie when I was 12 in the sixth grade. I agree with some pointers like the girl would not take a bath after somebody was murdered, and that high schools do NOT have bath tubs! I think Caroline Munro who was 36 at the time was the only other star that had any dignified acting talent, and unfortunately for Simon's death he made no future films. The reason(s) for his suicide are a mystery, and hopefully will be discovered in the near future. Doing the math on his webpage it tells you he was 29 years old when he made Slaughter High. He looked like a teenager. I give this film two thumbs up, the best horror film made. Probably because of their horrible acting the others didn't make fame in the movie business. -Jacob Young Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae0e7aaa0dbe4b398785e0ab2a4af096", "input": "Review: \"The Groove Tube\" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany \"Modern Problems\". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after \"Modern Problems\" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus \"Tunnelvision\" and \"Kentucky Fried Movie\" (although I might also include \"The Truman Show\"). Really funny.I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7388aedeaf044ebb94dfe4e5f09b05e4", "input": "Review: This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as \"Army of Darkness.\" AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. \"House of the Dead\" fails to be \"good bad.\".There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb261ca9c64748ceb78a90906bf09e2b", "input": "Review: One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06bf53b19c3d42cbbf9959162a35a1ff", "input": "Review: Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-945c36442bb14393816774593212a8ab", "input": "Review: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple \"under the floor\" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's \"Deep Red\"(my highest recommendation; superb film), \"Opera\", or even \"Tenebre\". They're stronger in every category. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-641c341d6d83419d83e5876ec0486675", "input": "Review: 'Stanley and Iris' show the triumph of the human spirit. For Stanley, it's the struggle to become literate and realize his potential. For Iris, it's to find the courage to love again after becoming a widow. The beauty of the movie is the dance that Robert DeNiro and Jane Fonda do together, starting and stopping, before each has the skills and courage to completely trust each other and move on. In that sense it very nicely gives us a good view of how life often is, thus being credible. Unlike some other reviewers I found the characters each rendered to be consistent for the whole picture. The supporting cast is also carefully chosen and they add a depth of character that the main characters get added meaning from the supporting performances. All in all an excellent movie. The best thing I take from it is Hope. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1433f5de86ee4c0e9a77508732c7cc75", "input": "Review: In this little film we have some great characters but a very shallow plot. It is actually nice to watch because Singleton does a great job at presenting the esoteric conflicts and the interpersonal relationships. This makes the viewer forget the nonexistent realism that this movie supposedly is for. In fact what we have here is all the possible cliches and stereotypes put on celluloid in a rate higher than that of a soap. Definitely not a deep movie (even if it wants to be), but better than an average college movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7b988cfc2614ca9b730728c2af126b2", "input": "Review: Six different couples. Six different love stories. Six different love angles. Eighty numbers of audience in the movie theater. Looking at the eighty different parts of the silver screen.I am sitting in somewhere between them looking at the center of the screen to find out what's going on in the movie. All stories have got no link with each other, but somewhere down the line Nikhil Advani trying to show some relation between them. I tried to find out a few lines I could write as review but at the end of 3 hours 15 minutes found nothing to write. The movie is a poor copy of Hollywood blockbuster LOVE ACTUALLY.My suggestion. Don't watch the movie if you really want to watch a nice movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe7255646c06466b86d3f8a0b045da9e", "input": "Review: Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics – 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' – and still comes out empty-handed.Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle \"the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you\" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aaf25d64800f482085e1b7eb54e5f902", "input": "Review: From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in. Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault. At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit. Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer. I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen. However \"Baretta's Island\" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it! The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is. As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun. But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9119902962d44a41aaa30b45a84d0892", "input": "Review: I thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48a94e305b1a47ecaaf3bd103c952209", "input": "Review: Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0417b557272244c4b3a3139c7ad9382a", "input": "Review: I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievableWARNING SPOILERISHIt's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.As for the ridiculous ending….In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.0/10 – One of the worst films ever made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee41da67d225439a8d6804eeb79ae5c3", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6d5f3c1e6ee46828053dd8f8caf33f9", "input": "Review: This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of \"charming loser\" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an \"Ejaculate on the cookie\"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked \"The Other Sister\" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.2 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-849457f9782449dfaed599f441499738", "input": "Review: I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over \"glorify\" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting \"let's create an enduring image\" for my liking.The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the \"this war is wrong because people died and suffered\" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big \"twist\" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful \"wrong turn.\" JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-119e772131db4c968d9b7f69296552eb", "input": "Review: I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the \"Bridges Of Madison County\" which I believe was released around the same time. But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4f7d4ddadd8426eba555ed9eb477725", "input": "Review: What an unusual movie.Absolutely no concessions are made to \"Hollywood special effects\" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0298d5b726e4f20b2773a06098cf7c4", "input": "Review: This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb078149decf48ce942bffa0e31f4e9c", "input": "Review: National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69c404ffb883490c9a7895fc855d722f", "input": "Review: One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-301a6b0f32634991a7b50a9ad6702d7a", "input": "Review: This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-434172ade6d94230bfbb3dba5771c195", "input": "Review: In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting \"actors\" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.\"Deliverance\" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.Overall, \"Deliverance\" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12172f51d21649ca9bdd524467fc9ca7", "input": "Review: Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from \"Scarface\". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled \"American Dream\".Anybody complaining about the \"cheesiness\" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. \"Scarface\" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a11ae8b80194d9cbdfcd2b1399d18c7", "input": "Review: When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc. The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.*Spoiler Alert* The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby? *End Spoiler* The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-108f594f13a145d3a400d12660b8b33b", "input": "Review: No, I've never seen any of the \"Santa Slasher\" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh \"killer\" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long – even at only 92 minutes, crap.Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the \"Leg Lamp\" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap – as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish \"who's naughty,\" it's as graphic as a \"Garbage Pail Kid\" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is…uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other \"Santa-Slashers\" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4dce59110dd40c586eb90bf6eb15f45", "input": "Review: I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words \"Clueless and appalling nonsense.\" I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a675d612f11440b8cbd46dc63e18fef", "input": "Review: Going into see Seven Pounds i wasn't clearly sure what to think because the previews left to much open to grasp what the movie was really about. So within the first 20 min or so you are completely lost in the plot, have no idea what is going on and you think Tim, who claims to be Ben, is just a big asshole. All of this comes to an end when the \"twist\",so to speak, is unraveled at the very last minute of the movie. Basically Tim (will smith) was troubled and haunted by a big accident he made causing the end of seven peoples lives. By this he decides to scope out seven new people who are in need of help badly who he in turns gives his life to.The acting of this film is great, as i feel will smith no matter what part he seems to impress. Rosario Dawson, to me, this is one of her better movies, aside from eagle eye which i think is up there to. She has been in some bad some good but she does deliver in this film. Other actors, such as woody Harrelson, have very small roles and not a big enough role to grasp the character. Although the casting of the film was still good.This movie was definitely not what i expected and certainly a lot slower pace in which i hoped. The movie, however, was still pretty good. Nothing is revealed until the last 5 min of the movie and everything falls into place. Up until then it just seems like a pointless love story. Final thought seven pounds=seven Stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3258cc7344c94804a07d0a9b251a9ffb", "input": "Review: An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW – two men trapped in room and pitting against each other – but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5c960dbd51e48fa939b24d58c2fea41", "input": "Review: I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed \"Hot Shots\" and \"The Naked Gun\" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, \"This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?\" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01a873ed3f414b378df23494c9c5b5c9", "input": "Review: **Attention Spoilers**First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to \"Braveheart\". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that \"Braveheart\" is a better film than \"Rob Roy\". I like \"Braveheart\" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to \"Rob Roy\" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love \"Braveheart\", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love \"Rob Roy\". Here are my particular reasons...-\"Rob Roy\" is about real people.Let's face it, the William Wallace in \"Braveheart\" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why \"The Last Temptation of Christ\" is a better film than \"King of Kings\", and that is also one of the reasons why I think \"Rob Roy\" is better than \"Braveheart\". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in \"Braveheart\". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.Throughout \"Rob Roy\", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.The villains in \"Rob Roy\" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in \"Braveheart\" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in \"Braveheart\", but from Brutus in \"Julius Ceasar\" to Fredo in \"The Godfather Part II\", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism.\"Rob Roy\" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. \"See to it that I am not mocked\" are his favorite words to his \"factor\". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in \"Rob Roy\", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. \"Rob Roy\" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.- The final duel in \"Rob Roy\" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in \"Braveheart\".One thing I get tired of is people telling me that \"Braveheart\" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From \"Spartacus\" to \"Gladiator\", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. \"Braveheart\" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell \"FREEDOM!\". But hey, maybe that's just me.- \"Rob Roy\" is more realistic than \"Braveheart\"I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in \"Rob Roy\", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by \"Rob Roy\" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. \"Rob Roy\" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.By contrast, the dialogue in \"Braveheart\" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before \"Rob Roy\", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of \"Aye\"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.So, do these descriptions prove that \"Rob Roy\" is a better film than \"Braveheart\"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that \"Braveheart\" is a better film than \"Rob Roy\". To put simply, \"Rob Roy\" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. \"Braveheart\" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...Grade - A Score - 9 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-372284f0e73a4589a2bb258302b35360", "input": "Review: Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like \"Anniyan\". A disappointment. Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in \"chandrmukhi\").Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.Others just have a small presence.Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie \"Kakka Kakka\". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of \"Entertainment\").Thx Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a805b7a2d1734f1cbaa45ec4f3584192", "input": "Review: Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b13c108db3f5433e90ccb743c5493283", "input": "Review: I thought this movie was LOL funny. It's a fun, not to be taken seriously, movie about one man's twisted views on life, love, and... well, ladies \"from the lowly bus station skank, to the high-class débutante... bus station skank.\" Tim meadows plays a guy (Leon Phelps) who was raised by in a Playboy-style mansion by a Hugh Hefner-esquire father figure, surrounded constantly by beautiful porn models and actresses. When his \"father\" kicks him out on the street he must learn to fend for himself with nothing but the chauvinistic outlook on life that his youth has taught him... that and an unfathomable, nearly mystical level of charm and dumb luck. And so the hijinx begin! If you haven't seen this movie and you enjoy a light-hearted, semi-mindless, comedy/love story, then I highly recommend renting \"the Ladies' Man\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af27d09d9cc7435894f2bc16622fe48e", "input": "Review: I thought this was a quiet good movie. It was fun to watch it. What I liked best where the 'Outtakes' at the end of the movie. They were GREAT. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4bf6d1046ecd431a996f6fcc76e3c7ff", "input": "Review: Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?It gets a \"7\" based on Karen Black. You'll see why. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb9a2e2c649147b1893fc1460638773a", "input": "Review: This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' \"Silly Love Songs\" is worthy of #1 status in America. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e4374c5f1ab4657bed371cce8fe3d13", "input": "Review: Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The \"alligator\" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-436a4e2d2ac2463580ee18a6d3128c1c", "input": "Review: I just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's \"Big Chuck and Little John\" in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The \"parody\" aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.Adam Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e39ae632bbc46128d6c42ba2fafe0c2", "input": "Review: This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1950994a50b04572ac0fecc527d2170c", "input": "Review: She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-75769463fec346428f98edce758c143c", "input": "Review: Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fe5cb5cb1524b4b9f89bff0f9fb1e2e", "input": "Review: hi, im scott (A.K.A woody7739) i Love the film Twisted Desire, And i love watching Melissa Joan Hart on the t.v as i think she is fine. I am a real fan of sabrina the teenage witch too, so this helped my watch it (don't ask). i love the way that nicole plans out her parents murder very carfully, as she makes sure that someone else pulls the trigger and practices on the bottles, so she wont give away her fingerprints (a very well planned out idea), back i guess it all backfired on nicole as she got caught as her old boyfriend comes along and puts a hidden camera under his shirt. i give this film a nine out of ten, and put it in MY top 10 films list. And last but not least if anyone see's this film in the shops please tell me as i seen it on tv and didn't record it. bye Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60f777c96850416286a4b5e8bf96bd7b", "input": "Review: An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema – when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love – along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action – but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend – in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much – may it be shown to the end of Time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d821661a5da4e6d97e9be0cf935260d", "input": "Review: This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although itwas a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richardswas again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie andjudge it yourself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-738e2d6292b541649dd5b8f42737e73a", "input": "Review: Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is \" That people change \" rather than say something along the lines like \" I`m a right slapper \" or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex \" as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said \" Ignorance is strength \" . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b3325e5649546979000399e0420160f", "input": "Review: This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what \"dan7\" in the computer graphic meant, said, \"Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24.\" He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read \"Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation\" by Jim McKeever and \"The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture\" by George E. Ladd. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbb89a9229804c4f844c0004cc6488a5", "input": "Review: This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-967a06c4c3134330b6420da1d84f967c", "input": "Review: When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the \"owner\" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a0e29eb4b8a47f18d50322cf227e5be", "input": "Review: Probably Bigas Luna's finest achievement for it achieves a delicate balance between sleaze, eroticism and surrealism. The delicious Mathilda May, who spent most of Tobe Hooper's \"Lifeforce\" in the buff, is the object of young Biel Duran's pre-teen lust. He can't get May's breasts out of his mind and wants so badly to suckle them and suckle the breasts of his own mother, too. His pursuit of May IS the film. As in Luna works such as \"Lulu\" and \"Jamon! Jamon!\", the director brings a slightly warped sexual sensibility to his strange but beautiful tale. The usual suspects will be offended, but those with open minds will enjoy this frothy erotic poem to the female breast. José Luis Alcaine's images are gorgeous and Nicola Piovani's score is sweet and rich. A gorgeous cinematic confection with a delightfully anarchic sensibility that the Spanish do so naturally. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-35ce281a64744343b9fcd3d11137654d", "input": "Review: This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73f0aa6bab4b4c16a1b9bdb082b10c04", "input": "Review: Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as \"good,\" but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aec7f5f3b902459a8ccde2689608003c", "input": "Review: Alan Curtis has a loud, violent sounding argument with his wife, slams out of his apartment, has a night of drinking with a mysterious lady with a large hat in a bar (run by Andrew Tombes, in a nice villainous part for a change), and returns to find his wife dead and the police, led by Thomas Gomez waiting for him. His attempts to prove his alibi - that he was with that mysterious lady - fall because everyone that he can think of (Tombes, Elisha Cook) claims there was never any such person. He ends up with no alibi, although his secretary (who secretly loves him) Ellen Raines believes him. Convicted after a trial, he is awaiting his death sentence. Raines starts going out after the truth, discovering that Gomez has some doubts of his own. She also finds an ally in a friend of Curtis, Franchot Tone, who was apparently out of town the night of the crime. Will she clear Curtis in time? THE PHANTOM LADY is based on a novel by William Irish (the great noir writer Cornell Woolrich). As movie fans know from other works by Woolrich (LEOPARD MAN, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, REAR WINDOW, NO MAN OF HER OWN) one cannot assume what is true on the surface anywhere. The missing wife of a salesman may not actually be upstate, sending him messages that she arrived, if he still has her jewelry. The mentalist may really be able to predict tragedy - or was he plotting the murder of his old partner, now an oil millionaire? Did a leopard kill the young women, or is the wealthy recluse in town actually hiding some guilty knowledge? Is the young woman, claiming to be the wife of a brother killed in a train wreck, actually an impostor? Here it is Raines and Gomez (with an assist by Tone) trying to prove Curtis did see a woman nobody will admit seeing - and if he did see her, why is nobody else able to recall seeing her? The problem with the story really is Curtis's personality - he gives in too easily when found guilty of the crime he did not commit. In reality anyone who is innocent would be screaming it to the moment they are executed. However, in defense of Curtis's collapse, it also happens to other people in various films: Gary Cooper, in MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN, gets so disgusted about the framing he gets as delusional and mad by Douglas Dumbrille and his minions that he does not defend himself at first, until the people who would depend on his help cry out their fears in the courtroom and reawaken his sense of responsibility. But Curtis just seems to give up. In normal circumstances Raines, Gomez, and everyone else would not care if Curtis didn't.But the film survives this weakness. The slow unraveling of lies by witnesses bribed by the real killer allows two set pieces for Raines with Tombes on a deserted elevated platform and Elisha Cook at a jazz session. Gomez turns out to be more perceptive than the villain expects in double checking his alibi again. And the villain manages to keep slightly ahead of Raines and Gomez until the concluding minutes of the film. If it is not as great a film as DOUBLE INDEMNITY or THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE or THE MALTESE FALCON, it holds up pretty well until the moment Curtis and Raines are reunited at the end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4d99a32399f4e6c828d1c4752b5c8ca", "input": "Review: I just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's \"Big Chuck and Little John\" in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The \"parody\" aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.Adam Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9211f54f0bf414e9d612e6bebe51092", "input": "Review: The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13794befa1d34ee8943e083e3018675e", "input": "Review: A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.My Grade: D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be8816827db74679a27c826af80d62c1", "input": "Review: This is to the Zatoichi movies as the \"Star Trek\" movies were to \"Star Trek\"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46edb367dd5f4813be550c5cb789c049", "input": "Review: If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the \"four knights\" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily \"lighter\"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a46e9e85aa94ba58731647258a8d942", "input": "Review: It was a bit bizarre and evil and i enjoyed it a lot, the characters in the show were great as well, and complimented one another well. I was sorry to see it cut off.. I would have loved to see where it could have went.You found yourself leaning toward Lucas Buck the sheriff who had more secrets than anyone. Lucas was frightening and alluring. And I would have liked to have seen more of him and how his character became. I will however buy the show just to enjoy, it was great to something different on TV. And Paige Turrco who was Caleb's cousin, she was a big mystery as to where and what she meant to Lucas. Its a shame it isn't around still.. or was never finished, i would have loved to see what would have happened. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-521f491dfd6a4c4098bf37e0f30ccbc6", "input": "Review: ...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09f02947e69d4d47a720ce49a4d967b7", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af3cd86b07194daaa16e1db5435d1bdc", "input": "Review: Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of \"force\" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8aea98fce1544a9fbac19270e775a6af", "input": "Review: This is one of the best of the genre. I saw it twice about 25yrs ago and have not had another opportunity to see it again since then. It rivals the Zatoichi series (also starring Katsu) in exciting swordplay. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-079a855f0dd5414e848424ffcb4dca36", "input": "Review: Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-74a260b9195e458ca1ca42d158f56dd7", "input": "Review: 'Before the devil knows you're dead' is one of the best movies I've seen in along time. The acting fromthe excellent ensemble cast is incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman putting in an outstanding performance and is electrifying every time he's on screen. Ethan Hawke matches him scene for scene and Albert Finney simply chews up the screen. Marisa Tomei is, however,criminally underused, but looks amazing for her 42 years. The script is excellent, the story-line non-linear but easy enough to follow. Sidney Lumet, although not known for his blockbusters, has turned out a gem with this one! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e8ec59639bd4709bd8116be41662c31", "input": "Review: Although DiG! was being hailed as being closest to what the music industry is like it is highly fabricated. The director has misled the audience into believing the Brian Jonestown Massacre disappeared off the face of the earth post-'98. And the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Jonestown has been milked. The truth of the matter is not really exposed in this film.That said this film is endlessly quotable and is an interesting watch as we get a look at two groups of very talented musicians creating their art. One of the best things this film has going for it is a unique perspective between the indie music scene and the larger corporate scene.Recommended mostly for the music and the two fantastic bands. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9d9a18d35cf49baaac694a72523a8f1", "input": "Review: OK, here it is: \"Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama.\" What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a \"political\" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-91efc9f6295248a48a2eaf521a059e12", "input": "Review: About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it! Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself. It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78cde4f4ddf34673aae672c95302adf9", "input": "Review: A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f40c0f9dc2548bd8f0a2a61b41548c3", "input": "Review: This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. (Possible spoiler warning) The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic \"caveman meets fluffball\" yarn, where a \"charming\" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's \"wit\" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-458b3e7403634dd08eeda2cebe765a35", "input": "Review: Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of \"American Psycho,\" and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac1f7ad27dfc4fc682f16c45b3a40d7a", "input": "Review: I went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ef01641c21245b28fd15de5e0468ac2", "input": "Review: FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and \"monsters from the Id\" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant \"must see\" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c0daa1b9a69453f9321467aa82794c0", "input": "Review: I only know of one other movie that could possibly compete with Opening Night and that's Bergman';s Persona. Both movies are simply amazing, they have a richness of ideas hard to grasp at first sight. We have a profound meditation on the relation of art and life as one actress, Myrtle Gordon (Gena Rowlands), finds herself more in touch with the character she is playing on stage than she would want to. The accidental death of one of her fans, a young girl that declares her love for Myrtle and she is then hit by a car, leaves a deep mark in the actress. She starts asking herself question related to her aging that starts to affect her until the only solution becomes alcohol. But that doesn't help to much and Myrtle is one step away from complete madness. The scene where she kill the imaginary (or not) spirit of the dead girl is one of the most thrilling scenes I found in a Cassavets film. The movie ends with a display of genius on behalf of the director as he films a theater scene where he himself and Gena Rowlands improvise a scene, since Myrtle comes too drunk to the opening night to perform her part accurately. This scene was filmed spontaneously, with a live audience, the laughter is genuine, the chemistry between Casavates and Rowlands absolutely amazing. If you liked Persona or are interested in a movie that offers substantial ideas alongside great entertainment this movie will suit you just fine. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a5fc8c06250435ab5828bd2aca20d53", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe an \"action\" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d588f2207324893a9a91d4f3cd6cbf9", "input": "Review: The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa3763d783ab4f8ca810aa154b5443f2", "input": "Review: I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk. This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.Oh dear... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-75b2aae1e9e048cfbe6c91610a6013eb", "input": "Review: The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. \"Daddy's going hunting,\" The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friendsThe following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!- Alan \"Skip\" Bannacheck Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-286aa8c3cfae474faecd078b6f53fd64", "input": "Review: Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny \"Duck Dodgers\". The latter time was with this … um … effort. \"Loonatics Unleashed\" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the \"city-planet\" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as \"Bugs-like\". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish \"Teen Titans\", including its overly \"modern\" animation \"look\", but with animals. Feh.The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f9a43672b5e4952865c3bbac81bb86d", "input": "Review: I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called \"jokes\" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7afa79b1676f4f8987738bf95f81175f", "input": "Review: I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c12639f733446488f5a6ae52eb5e6d6", "input": "Review: Hey,If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you \"do something\" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-779174b41ca241f285004928a1a0ad88", "input": "Review: Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of \"Eddie\" and \"Marilyn\" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a \"typical\" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08bb8aaf41db40788104f3eaf9ccb552", "input": "Review: This is the best movie I`ve ever seen !!! Thomas Beckett & Richard Miller -two mankinds who want to survive in the \"jungle\" of violence and madnes, one shot - one killed !!? You must kill, if you getting doubt about something, YOU MUST SURVIVE !!P.P.- I appologise of my bad / worst/ English !!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11b63ea1272c49baadbbe5f5a818c023", "input": "Review: When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical \"love thy neighbour\" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0434c816501047778f47e50afde715e9", "input": "Review: Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bd4c7e8aca94573abbb3b6af4df7080", "input": "Review: \"CIA Codename:Alexa\" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film \"La Femme Nikita\"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' \"acting\" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie \"conventions\" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for \"Hard to Kill\" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip \"CIA Codename:Alexa\" and check out \"La Femme Nikita\" instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5ce9308ad1a411b8db40bc1f42585b8", "input": "Review: In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa38525fb17e46beac6b9c0cafe817d0", "input": "Review: I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.\"Splatter University\" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09cf750971ce4f43a6518c6ec0ef8c6a", "input": "Review: Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying \"Back Story\" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed \"is not a nice person\"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a \"theatrical release\" version and a \"restored\" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the \"restored\" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-740a9986e68f4a32a4664b8cafedb13f", "input": "Review: I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-573f4ca1ac3147cfbbcc704261df1b4d", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2609680faa614227bf8e886f4738f3ad", "input": "Review: Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think \"damn I really lucked out finding this movie\". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76970dab34464e038ced343c28fef60d", "input": "Review: Everybody's got bills to pay, and that includes Christopher Walken.In Vietnam, a group a soldiers discover that the war is over and are heading back home when they spot a bunch of POWs, including Christopher Walken. Following a Mad Max 3 (!) Thunderdome fight, and a short massacre later. Walken and some Colombian guy split a dollar bill promising something or other.Cut to the present (1991), and Colombian guy is leading a revolution against El Presidente. He's successful at first, but after El Presidente threatens to crush folks with a tank, he's forced to surrender and is shot in the head on live television. This is shown in full gory detail as a news flash on American telly, which leads Walken to assemble the old squad (even though he wasn't actually part of that squad to begin with), in order to invade Colombia and gun down thousands of people.McBain is a monumentally stupid film, but for all that it's also a good laugh, and action packed too. This is one of those movies where logic is given a wide berth - how else could Walken shoot a fighter pilot in the head from another plane without suffering from decompression, or even breaking a window? Also, it seems that these guys can gun down scores of drug dealers in New York without the police bothering.There's plenty of b-movie madness to chew on here, from Michael Ironside's diabolical acting in the Vietnam sequence, to the heroic but entirely pointless death of one of the heroes, to the side splitting confrontation between Walken and El Presidente, and let's not forget the impassioned speech by the sister of the rebel leader, being watched on television in America (nearly brought a brown tear to my nether-eye, that bit).It's out there for a quid. Buy it if you have a sense of humour. See how many times you can spot the camera crew too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c5caed63a1d4b7ba50bff6a1a2d7869", "input": "Review: Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9be9176537c44e2e91b004deab0597c0", "input": "Review: Lost, probably the best t.v series ever made. the storyline is clever and when all your questions are answered watching one episode, 100 more are raised. if lost can carry on it's magnificent ways and not get too carried away then it will be stapled the best show ever. The survivors of a plane crash are forced to live with each other on a remote island, a dangerous new world that poses unique threats of its own. after reading this your thinking how on earth can that be interesting? and heres your answer, every season SO FAR has always been full of surprises, your always questioning your self why did that just happened and what's gonna happen next each time, very unexpected thing's happen and the story goes on wonderfully SO FAR! The series just sucks you in, it's chilling and very addictive, everything from the wonderful creators and directing to the magnificent performances by the cast creates a very believable story. Lost is simply unbelievable, amazing, highly entertaining, top notch, t.v at it's best.How ever you want to put it. Lost beat's all other show's by a landslide. And if your hating or criticising Lost you don't know how to watch t.v or watch drama. Lost simply doesn't disappoint, you would think a series carrying on for so long can't keep getting better. But it does! It just keep's on flowing it's unlike anything you would ever think off. \"Every thing happens for a reason.\" And that is truly shown in the series. Eventually you will reach a point were all the clues and everything that's happened or being done adds up. You will feel and realise how the characters have changed and how and why everything is going on. The 10 minutes of excitement: You see something you didn't see coming, something major has happened to character or on the island. There's hope somewhere. You see a major twist that can or will change everything. You hear your thought's churn, you wonder what's gonna happen next. Your heart beating. The 30 minutes of brilliance: You see a flawless scenes, tension building, you hear wonderful music by Michael Giacchino. You see great flash backs, impressive acting. You see wittiness, chilling atmosphere, which then get's converted back into tension.Everyone has there show that they are addicted too, that they can't get enough of, that they admire every minute and can't wait for the next episode, That they talk about 24/7. Too me and many others it's this series. Lost. Once you start watching, you won't get enough. The creators did a flawless job. Lost is completely unique and original, you won't see anything like it. The clever idea of \"flashbacks and flashforwards\" and something major and different in every season sucks your thoughts. Would they ever make a series like \"LOST\"? Something so interesting and something you will always remember. It simply has stunned the world when it hit t.v. A new generation of dramatic/sci-fi. A instant classic before it reached out to the viewers.I'm sure you all heard of lost and it's 5 star reviews, and your annoying friend that won't stop telling you about it, so what's stopping you from watching?Every episode leads to something new and it just doesn't stop getting better and better, you get more interested as it goes along, you learn things that are on the island that you wouldn't even think off. The characters start to become very likable, and if your the critic type you would love to see Lost in further detail, things like how the relationship between characters develop and how they learn the ways to under look and take on challenges from the Island. All together it's a great drama and a flawless series. I guess we just all hope that lost will not have a downfall in the episodes to come and go to far.....so if you don't watch lost, read the comment from the top again and you should change your mind. Seeing is believing, so until you start watching you will never know .I strongly recommend this masterpiece of series: LOST!! start watching!!! You have not seen nothing until you watch LOST!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-173880314365447093ad7e8ad9c67a90", "input": "Review: When I heard this film was directed by Ang Lee, I made sure to see it. This Taiwanese director burst into fame with \"The Wedding Banquet\" and \"Eat Drink Man Woman\" a few years ago and then moved on to \"Sense and Sensibility\" and \"The Ice Storm\". Now, he turns his attention to another American icon -- the Civil War.This story takes place in Missouri, a Union state with Southern sympathies. These never officially joined the Confederate army. Instead, they formed outlaw bands, called \"bushwhackers\", grew they hair long, and sometimes would confiscated Union uniforms which they wore over their regular clothing.The movie depicts their moral dilemma, the high drama of the times, and their supposedly heroic missions of killing storekeepers and farmers who aided the Union. There are no stars in this movie, unless you consider \"Jewel\" the singer, well cast as a young confederate widow as a star.Tobey Macquire is cast as a young German farm boy who is derided for his heritage because the Germans were supposed Union sympathizers. This young man is an excellent actor, full of fresh faced youth whose performance encompasses his wonder and subtle realizations as he's exposed to the horror of war.Jeffrey Wright is a freed slave who travels with the bushwhackers because of his loyalty to the young man who bought him his freedom. He gives a fine and understated performance.Some of the acting, however, is wooden, especially in the long conversations they have about morality. And their costumes are too new. And the \"southern gentleman\" theme of manners and hat-tipping and politeness to women comes across as a bit much -- especially since they make it a point to murder all the men who they pull from their women's arms, then burn down the stores and houses.While I don't think that this will go down as one of Lee Ang's \"great\" movies, I did find myself fascinated by it, in spite of the slow parts and its excessive length of 140 minutes. I was interested in what was happening next and felt empathy for each of the characters who all came across as real and imperfect human beings caught up in the forces of history.Not as much action as the usual war movie, but yet still recommended -- especially for Civil War buffs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-311c9403a3eb40e29f39d39fa5605d11", "input": "Review: Beautiful film, pure Cassavetes style. Gena Rowland gives a stunning performance of a declining actress, dealing with success, aging, loneliness...and alcoholism. She tries to escape her own subconscious ghosts, embodied by the death spectre of a young girl. Acceptance of oneself, of human condition, though its overall difficulties, is the real purpose of the film. The parallel between the theatrical sequences and the film itself are puzzling: it's like if the stage became a way out for the Heroin. If all american movies could only be that top-quality, dealing with human relations on an adult level, not trying to infantilize and standardize feelings... One of the best dramas ever. 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50c2874ae0434302ba0bba3b03d44732", "input": "Review: I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5d88570bd1844db9086e90319412419", "input": "Review: What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her \"Moonlighting\" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with \"Fried Green Tomatoes\" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with \"Dirty Dancing\", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to \"Three Men and A Baby\" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-38e3abadbe384023b89f6692ab2ad732", "input": "Review: This movie was supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both… STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24dab24a262a4bdc9a3eb640ec282818", "input": "Review: The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.\tFirst time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.\tMaking her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.\tAs positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.\tThe supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f1e862c328f47a689fbce80ac735000", "input": "Review: OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles. Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as \"manos the hands of fate.\"The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d679e1383354fe89b5c471ae5010656", "input": "Review: This movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a20dade13a643dfa38b6997a2832572", "input": "Review: Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like \"Anniyan\". A disappointment. Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in \"chandrmukhi\").Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.Others just have a small presence.Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie \"Kakka Kakka\". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of \"Entertainment\").Thx Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e558237d06e2472886d7fc249478d477", "input": "Review: The second alternate Gundam universe tale (G-Gundam being the first), Gundam Wing is yet another different view into the Gundam verse. The familiar elements are found but Gundam Wing is actually different then its counterparts. The biggest being the Gundams are nothing more than terrorists combating one lone organization. In truth, the series doesn't really become a show about war until episode 7 but in truth the real conflict, the Eve Wars, don't happen until the later episodes. The greatest positives of this series are it's characters. All the main characters are fleshed out throughout the 49 episode run and you can really sympathize with each of the roles their put in. Another great plus is the fantastic character and mecha design of the series. The designs put some of it's other Gundam counterparts to shame. One of the biggest criticism of this series is how many die hard UC fans claim rip off of the original UC saga. Why Gundam Wing gets this rap when the more apparent UC clone of Gundam Seed is out there is beyond me. True there are many moments lifted but their told in new ways and there are distinct differences as well.Take for example, the usual comparison of Zechs Merquise and UC Icon Char Aznable. Throughout the series, Zechs is more the outcast in the Alliance and in ways OZ as well, while the Red Comet was shining symbol of Zeon. Another big difference is the fact Zechs loses a lot soldiers under his command hence the other nickname he's given in the early episodes: \"Killer of his own men.\" Char isn't given this label. The problems with this series isn't the philosophy mumbo jumbo but two problems. The first is the reused animation footage of the Gundams attacks. Sure it's fun seeing Heavy Arms attack tanks, MS, and planes the first time. But on it's fourth re-use scenes like this do get old. The second problem is that the entire series is supposed to take place during an entire year. If you really think about all the events springing in the series, a lot happens in just one lone year. But I guess you can easily dismiss this fact when ignoring the intro's first lines every so often. As it ranks, this is probably the best of the Alternate universe Gundam tales and a great introduction into the Gundam world. After all, this was the very first Gundam anime to air in the US television. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d7242f26e2d4e788aa613f44acf557b", "input": "Review: This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad1a05f55c4b4f9caa126025044e27c4", "input": "Review: A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie \"Clockwatchers\" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-658b213443a34e728ebf35d67fc16245", "input": "Review: This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-836a8d91781c4310973076e367a5e9d7", "input": "Review: This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aede8ed70ad49cb9ecd6bd824784d0f", "input": "Review: The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fccd1812322344f4aa535c0646062498", "input": "Review: Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is \"The General\", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.Like \"Goodfellas\" (1990) and \"American Gangster\" (2007)—two superior mob movies—\"The General\" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous \"Goodfellas\" (1990) and the first two \"Godfather\" films, I was expecting too much from \"The General.\" But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. \"Schindler's List\" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. \"The General\", made just five years after \"Schindler's List\" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like \"Schindler's List\" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not one—not one—character in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was \"okay…so what?\" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say \"so what?\" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90f1aae4046c4247afabd9b57d8d35e4", "input": "Review: Ah, Domino is actually a breath of fresh air, something new to the cinema world. I enjoyed the movie a lot because of the intricate plot, the varied characters, and the intense camera effects. I've seen some complain about the camera work and, in fact, according to the creators themselves, the flashy and wild shots were all the culmination of mistakes made through time. All of what you see was the desired effect. Perhaps some complain because something quite like this has never been done before, although that's what sets it apart. In a deeper aspect, what you are seeing is just how Domino sees things through her eyes, think about it.When it comes to the story, I don't see anything quite bad about it. Despite it's \"messy\" nature, according to some, it is in fact just a rapid form of storytelling. The plot really isn't all that hard to follow, if you actually focus on what's going on. Maybe it's just me because I see movies from many different aspects such as the acting, the plot, etc. I'm no \"interpreter\" or anything who picks movies apart, it just comes to me. With that said, I believe this is quite an excellent movie indeed, despite it's future as a cult-classic, blockbuster, or whatever.And the characters, well there's no doubting how varied the cast is. I believe the cast is excellent as they all do fine jobs portraying their characters effectively, that's what makes a movie ladies and gentlemen. The characters are all very unique and a plus is that you get to witness a small piece of each one of their lives, setting them apart even further. Basically, I personally loved the cast and characters.All those who bash and burn this film perhaps just don't see it as I do, or it just doesn't appeal to them. No matter, this is a great film in it's own right, no, it's a great film period. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b07f95b03d246698f5f80009151c3e9", "input": "Review: Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02c518ce0e8f4c8cb8a74b373f65fce9", "input": "Review: Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b88782a18a014774aded5c2741f687ad", "input": "Review: I decided to watch this because of the recommendations from this site. I would have to say it was worth the effort. However, you should take heed that this film will go on for 210 minutes. If you don't have the staying power, get it on tape and watch it over a couple of nights.Now to the film, what I say will contain \"spoilers\" and if you don't mind, here goes: Alexandre is a promiscuous bum, a womanizer and a gigolo. He lives with an older woman called Marie. Marie owns a retail shop and she provides for Alex. Alex spends his days at cafés and restaurants. The story reveals that Alex had previously impregnated Gilberte whom he used to live with. Gilberte dumped him for a less attractive man that she did not love because Alex had abused and battered her. At this point, Alex was willing to get a job and and help raise their child before he found out Gilberte had aborted it and planned to marry someone else. By chance, Alexandre meets a nurse nymph called Veronika and they striked up a relationship. Veronika fell in love with Alex for the first time after all the sordid sex she had with men in the past. Marie and Veronika struggles for Alex's affection and had a ménage à trois to boot. Finally at the end, it's revealed Veronika is pregnant with Alex's child and Alex asked her to marry him. We assume (as aforesaid with Gilberte's situation) Alexandre will even get a job and be the provider for his new found love and family. There is hope! With the title of \"La Maman et la putain\", I deduce Jean Eustache was relating to Françoise Lebrun's character of Veronika. She was a whore and then she became the mother. Hence, the mother and whore is the same person? Anyway, what do I know! French films are mostly (not all) very chatty, aimlessly political, preaching, theatrical, insipid, lamenting and full of quotes. Lebrun and Léaud played their obdurate characters well and held the film together as some part of the script became a little lost and disjointed. Not a bad effort. 7/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bba83c2c7a824f09a49d1a9d6d7ca811", "input": "Review: Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel \"Ye Shall Know Them\" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the \"missing link\" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe \"the Tropi\" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly \"human\" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb2694a672dd48cea3381c2251ef84f1", "input": "Review: What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b1693c398574ef6a1395753bbc0d40f", "input": "Review: I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when \"significant\" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-443ffb56cd24447bac1fdd97cbef4f36", "input": "Review: Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86f81a75c2844e419324492a44540123", "input": "Review: The film \"52 Pick Up\" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno \"industry\" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie \"Boogie Nights\" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky \"good guy,\" in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. \"52 Pick Up\" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the \"sweet revenge\" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-367fa718295946ae93e2f0edbbee7e16", "input": "Review: Spooks is enjoyable trash, featuring some well directed sequences, ridiculous plots and dialogue, and some third rate acting.Many have described this is a UK version of \"24\", and one can see the similarities. The American version shares the weak silly plots, but the execution is so much slicker, sexier and I suspect, expensive.Some people describe weak comedy as \"gentle comedy\". This is gentle spy story hour, the exact opposite of anything created by John Le Carre.Give me Smiley any day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f733e5818004525b6fc44d9d9f9b24d", "input": "Review: Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.It IS jazz.The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-247ae729f9354b4eb79be6662ad7c337", "input": "Review: It is not the same as the other films about dancing. A few normal people found themselves from dancing. Unlike the dancing films in Hollywood, the characters in this film are not handsome or hot young people. They are someone that you may see everyday in your offices. They are some depressed about their lives and finally find themselves and their dreams from dancing. This touches me very deeply. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ca5db07438d48eb8bb6de5cba13e52e", "input": "Review: \"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.Rino Di Silvestro's \"La lupa mannara\" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening \"flashback\" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.As a film, \"Werewolf Woman\" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96913b5a29834bbfab1360a3dab919e9", "input": "Review: This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' \"Silly Love Songs\" is worthy of #1 status in America. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e31a644d6f0d4146b4c1505f97fc2d24", "input": "Review: One word can describe this movie and that is weird. I recorded this movie one day because it was a Japanese animation and it was old so I thought it would be interesting. Well it was, the movie is about a young boy who travels the universe to get a metal body so he can seek revenge. On the way he meets very colorful characters and must ultimately decide if he wants the body or not. Very strange, if you are a fan of animation/science-fiction you might want to check this out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bab098259498450ebcf290bc7e3fe160", "input": "Review: This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like \"I don't know\"; \"I like his arms\"; \"I like the way he makes love\" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06a9f0f61fb14751a687a2843b077177", "input": "Review: Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful! This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's \"my girl\" and I love her work.I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef8a1d37858041fb9e3cb63cd1d3ffcd", "input": "Review: Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a790119c7e214e7d976b11ce89d0f932", "input": "Review: I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1395c0e447594557889e01d3cb29ae84", "input": "Review: Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0f31cc84c804be58e24ecb01c31a858", "input": "Review: The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.Rating: 6/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-327b232bd25946f5996c490a615fcdb8", "input": "Review: OK, I overrated it just a bit to offset at least one of those grumpy reviews. But I did enjoy it. I didn't laugh out loud, but it held my interest and pulled me along without dropping me at any point. The story built. Yeah, you knew it would have an happy ending--this genre always does. Meantime, it was quirky with sight gags you could miss, so pay attention when you watch. Stiller and Black delivered expertly yet again. Good team. They should work together more. Don't know that it will be a cult classic, but it was certainly a fun ride. Not as good as WHAT ABOUT BOB, or DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS but what is? It is still worth going out of your way a little to get and watch this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c518f0b7a2d2449bb3c877e531e52e2b", "input": "Review: You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor \"Little Nikki\" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every \"Air Band\" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3f59b5440a24238a5ae2210595e983c", "input": "Review: I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7c16acba5bc4e7197cbaa1968023149", "input": "Review: Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his \"Laura\" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - \"You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!\". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be \"Sandy Dixon's kid\" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since \"Laura\" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in \"The Iron Curtain\" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad (\"Your father liked me,\" he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c46df0fcf7c54615839b40faec5f4ae3", "input": "Review: This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-adb5cbb95364455bbf6485506310bdb7", "input": "Review: Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the \"idealistic youths\" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9df3e33d97d34710842231ed4dc743e2", "input": "Review: \"Laugh, Clown Laugh\" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of \"ick\" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a599c2ccbf2a444a8e36d0a793784800", "input": "Review: When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc. The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.*Spoiler Alert* The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby? *End Spoiler* The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78b821e11e294470b2f65f4fb199549d", "input": "Review: To finally see what many consider to be the greatest women-in-prison film of all time, I felt like I had accomplished something as ridiculous as that sounds. Boy, it sure contained the elements I expected, and delivered so much more. A constant I'm discovering in these films is the toughness and grit of the actresses in the roles of prisoners preparing for escape while their threshold, tolerance, and resolve(..not to mention sanity)being tested by their superiors. While most of them were hired for the way they look naked, because the nature of the genre demands such gratuitous elements, something else emerges, other attributes, such as attitude and guts, that I ultimately respond to.This, as you may know all too well, was Demme's debut for his mentor Roger Corman, and he provides the target audience with exactly what they desire while putting his own stamp on the proceedings. For instance, there are bizarre dreams certain characters have which define their current psychological states(..there's a particular number featuring warden Barbara Steele where she reminded me of Alex de Large of A Clockwork Orange).The film has female prisoners planning a daring escape, tired of the crazed antics of their wheel-chair bound warden and her nutty prison doc, Randolph(Warren Miller). Juanita Brown is Maggie, the tough, sassy sister who is fed up with the environment and will do whatever it takes to get out. She's the one all the girls fear to cross. Erica Gavin is Jacqueline Wilson, the newest prisoner who was busted by police and sentenced for the murder of a cop, unwilling to give up the names of those she was involved with. Roberta Collins is Belle, a serial kleptomaniac, best pals with Pandora(Ella Reid). Belle becomes the obsession of Randolph who promises Superintendent McQueen(Steele)that through a surgical procedure he can remove her violent tendencies. Drugging her up, Randolph takes nude pictures and sodomizes her, whimpering like a little girl due to his own mental deficiencies while hugging her naked body in his arms. Cheryl Rainbeaux Smith is Lavelle, in prison for life for murdering a scumbag whose relative was a Senator. Lavelle receives work in Randolph's office and is the one responsible for relating his dirty antics to Pandora. Demme effectively builds the movie to the expected finale as a planned break-out, using those behind the various traumas inflicted on the prisoners as hostages, with gunfire erupting.I was quite impressed with the photographic work of long time Demme collaborator, cinematographer Tak Fujimoto, as he is able to establish some visually arresting moments within the cramped confines of the prison, cells and rooms, not an easy task. The prison is appropriately crummy and the girls, despite being quite attractive, look the part of desperate inmates longing, yearning from the very pits of their souls, to escape such horrid entrapment. Steele is superb as the warden, understanding how to take the role close to the brink without going to far, candidly able to express the madness of her repressed character within a restraint..notice how she works her glasses and settles herself without blowing her top particularly when certain behaviors she has contempt for push her teetering to the edge. Cale's bluesy score is incredibly depressing, while also casting a wink to the audience that the movie is still fun-and-games..I think Cale's score mirrors Demme's handling of the material. Cale and Demme's partnership is an uncanny alliance that presents the setting as a sad, isolating, oppressive place, while, almost simultaneously, showcasing a humorous tone that permeates due to the colorful characters thanks in part to the personalities of the cast. My favorite scene happens outside the prison, as two of our girls(..joining forces with a third)interrupt a bank robbery already in progress..the kicker is it was a bank they were planning to rob! As you might expect, you get naked women in showers, prisoner in solitary, a cat fight, shootouts, attempted escapes which go awry, and other exploitative elements(..such as a horrifying shock therapy session, not to exclude the shocking aforementioned sequence where the screwy doc takes advantage of Belle). Interesting enough, Demme relates the film to the audience without a whiff of pretension, understanding exactly the kind of movie he was making. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-caef1900e36d4925a3b9b7952ad47c63", "input": "Review: I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-840fbfacee7a45f892c47e832f61257d", "input": "Review: Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db252525da244d46879ee757b894f13a", "input": "Review: 'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38d394a0ba5f411197befe8e53bb3826", "input": "Review: Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7500dc47c0e42369f8b9bb87adab730", "input": "Review: Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fa34ed1d8364ae0b594731651ce4abd", "input": "Review: It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e2f89ed447740c4bba0cadfeb21ce71", "input": "Review: The first ten minutes of \"Just Looking\" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like \"Kids\" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. \"For Better Or Worse\" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-618b81fac4b9437b8c81ac81e7912893", "input": "Review: Loved it but still have nightmares over the hotel manager.The movie, was presented well, with the choice of actors carrying their roles to reality of the writing. Many scenes gripped the imagination and created a nail biter. The progression of situations were cleverly written,making me believe the story was headed one way only to find a new twist on what I thought might be the obvious. Too bad there have to be commercials.I have told many friends to watch for further showings and I of course will view again.I enjoyed the scenery of the film and felt this added to the plots and intrigue. Husband and wife heated discussions(or should I say fights?) were very realistic.The initial situation is a common one but the escalation into the story presented fortunately is not.I want to thank all who were involved in this great entertainment film. Thank you! Looking forward to the next films---when? Whidbey Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1cbf7b25f9914d6ca1d6a6ef7d06425b", "input": "Review: If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1623c63f0252467fa2ffd1b64eccc236", "input": "Review: Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move \"Nightmare on Elm St.\" by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c182afaba5494cea891ada02395091d3", "input": "Review: I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: \"Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?\", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52bd766b5ebf4fcb98d3ca2bbefdeec7", "input": "Review: I've always liked Fred MacMurray, and—although her career was tragically cut short—I think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get…a mediocre movie experience.Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) \"meet cute\" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes…it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-879065dd9b2b49a1a21e8008cd1f7e2c", "input": "Review: The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8922bc34f11c4252a55b73a58514e820", "input": "Review: PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.*1/2 out of **** I give it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59a2840f1de94a0499f054da926860b4", "input": "Review: A bad rip-off attempt on \"Seven\", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them \"sex offenders\", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.Unlike \"Seven\", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about \"sex offenders\" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.Don't waste time on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43d412277ed94fbeb20a620a40ea277d", "input": "Review: Creature Comforts in America should have been released on a different network, or at least been given the chance to have its full run of episodes. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Given that American audiences (seemingly) have the attention spans of a gnat when it comes to the humor that does not consist of profanity laced diatribes, or has a preoccupation with scatological functions (both sound and smells), shows like this will be few and far between. One of the main problems was that however brilliant it was, it was made for a rarefied audience who knew what to expect but was viewed by an audience and board rooms that did not have a clue at to what they were watching. Which is sad, but not unexpected. I would have liked to have seen at least three more seasons of this show even if it was produced for direct DVD release. The material and the interactions between the creatures were rich with sub context and there were other conversations just waiting to be had under the surface. But thanks to Political Correctness, such conversations take place only in my mind. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8b9f45ac7fd42f0a54461da35f2df01", "input": "Review: This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2480611448804296815b5eaf5447dc1f", "input": "Review: Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a \"breakthrough\" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention \"trailer park\"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the \"Goofs\" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-650f03f7fb314768a9c23ce8660c3b86", "input": "Review: The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a057e9ed2435440abc7756dd526f1317", "input": "Review: I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f93cdba269404a7c8d48d2b4e882a2e5", "input": "Review: Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN\"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef794045b43c4c02a4e185e05b1520b5", "input": "Review: My evaluation: 8/10I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), \"Soylent Green\" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat \"cookies\" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like \"Reality Show\".TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a9a3fcdd7724dbe9019c6dbeb63a6df", "input": "Review: Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as \"The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur\". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias \"Macintosh\" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-530f192e7fba4f65b2d266b9b6399674", "input": "Review: This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.A movie of its time, and place. 2/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06a377f869db48418cfb85824712f321", "input": "Review: 1933 seemed to be a great year for satires (\"Duck Soup\" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the \"Goings On About Town\" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc9d73b453e14eb1ab92a5bbc3188082", "input": "Review: I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is \"the mundane life is worth living\", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1a82ca182414238abd8eed62192b195", "input": "Review: When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be \"Paths of Glory\" with American uniforms. Except that \"Paths of Glory\" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from \"Gettysburg\" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from \"The Thin Red Line\". But in \"The Thin Red Line\" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fdfc870a37842c1b0a6e19f5eefd825", "input": "Review: A series of vignettes, most of them spoofing television of the 1970's, but also with some digs at the government and corporate America. One of the longest segments, \"The Dealers\" is not that funny to me and I don't know what it is parodying. Some of the others, though, are absolutely side-splitting. I particularly enjoy the cooking show segment. Most of the foul words I know are used in the movie, and, if you object to full frontal nudity, stay away. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-915979e2567643109359f536d77c0998", "input": "Review: A real classic. A shipload of sailors trying to get to the towns daughters while their fathers go to extremes to deter the sailors attempts. A maidens cry for aid results in the dispatch of the \"Rape Squad\". A cult film waiting to happen! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1055aefe57544f8192d66494f1432fe8", "input": "Review: The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called \"Blood\" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48b1e8cdb3ad4c86aa74e23ef2a51a9d", "input": "Review: Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless. In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate. Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie. There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on. Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and \"somewhat\" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it. (On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-075fca464c7b4dbcb299057945fa750c", "input": "Review: I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94675d32dbd849b781ccf8d818541653", "input": "Review: When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-402b8992dd0849229edc157338c24e81", "input": "Review: VAMPYRES Aspect ratio: 1.85:1Sound format: MonoA motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's \"Carmilla\" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-898ca60fd8fb44ebafcf0458453e49fd", "input": "Review: I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-450fdcb342484bc7902ff96ce4601380", "input": "Review: I gave it an 8 star rating. The story may have fallen short about 3/4 of the way into the picture but the performances remained strong throughout.\"Men of Honor\" was changed from \"Navy Diver\" understandably so. Anyone who has served in any branch of the armed forces will probably feel that \"Honor\" is an appropriate word to use in the title. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-532c8aaaec86427ea93da72447e42537", "input": "Review: Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-84a49ed248bd439a9bae69a41719b448", "input": "Review: This is one very confusing movie. The film is very hard to follow and the plot just didn't seem to make any sense. The Fury of the Wolfman was made in Spain and I think that when any film is dubbed from one language to another, it doesn't translate exactly as it was first meant. Maybe this is part of the problem but I doubt if it can account for all the problems with this film. The dubbing is pretty bad and the voices don't match the characters very well. The scenes are choppy, there is an array of strange and irrelevant characters that do little more than confuse the viewer even more. What I did like about this film was the look of the wolfman himself and the scenes where he attacks. Now if they could have put it all together and had it make some sense, they might have had something. Don't waste your time on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28ccbd813bf44727a90cd02963de970f", "input": "Review: I bought this cheap from the rental remnant at our local store. It was in almost mint condition, and I'd never heard of it before. Clearly nobody else had either.I can't believe my luck. You go through the whole realm of emotions and it attempts to get over a complex message - the very moral and non-triumphalist stance of the Mandela Party, undoubtedly. Despite its enormous length (I had to watch it in two sittings) - it was like a book one couldn't put down. Perhaps the songs are not all that memorable, but the spirit of the thing glows on forever. I cannot understand comments that a musical (clearly designed for stage) is not realistic! I've seen \"South Pacific\" and read the book too, and can guarantee that musical is not realistic compared to the book. I'll treasure this little find until it wears out. One day they'll make this again on a better budget. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5f493b2cedb41cc95c855af5622cddb", "input": "Review: The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59bc5250f0ab4bd9960462bb4e5791ec", "input": "Review: This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad moviedo yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43b388b0eae7482ab9fa1d892f9adf3f", "input": "Review: Dominion Tank Police is without a shell of a doubt, one of the most amazing shows ever produced, but not just in the field of animation. While the first part (Acts 1 and 2) mostly consists of action and fun, the second part is more serious and one should not treat the second part in the exact same way as first part. The subtleties are truly out of this world and the characterization is beyond brilliant. You must have an extra degree of intelligence to appreciate the intricacies of the second Part (Acts-3 and 4). I do have some complaints though. In the first part, the Tank Bonaparte quite literally jumps over a tank shell and it did not make any sense at all. One might also question the plausibility of Bonaparte jumping on the wing of Helicopter Gunship even though it was cool. Buaku rules. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c5bfb969ed3489ea81999c52a229e70", "input": "Review: Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.4 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3eff5ef46ece4d808c2ba36a7c98b956", "input": "Review: Kim Novak's a witch on the prowl for a mortal lover, and James Stewart's her choice. Scintillating comedy of manners, from the Broadway stage; shot by James Wong Howe in Witch Color, and performed by a sterling cast. Ernie Kovacs is wonderful as the perpetually dishevelled writer Redlitch. I love this movie, though few others seem to. Kim alone makes it a winner in my Book. Ha! My #5 film of 1958. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a3ff6cca22b4e56a9009f3161296b90", "input": "Review: This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his \"I'll be back line\" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66e25af4527b420faac609c5a333b23e", "input": "Review: Not knowing what this film was about, I checked it out at the video store and after seeing it, I enjoyed it. Little seen multi-genre flick from director Bernard Rose (Candyman, Immortal Beloved). Great story and characters. As a fan of Glenne Healdy's, I was surprised of her british accent. The only exception for this film was the ending. However, it is worth the rent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7559a9965f5f4b9c822d25884a8f92ff", "input": "Review: \"The Screaming Skull\" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw \"House on Haunted Hill\" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2976241ff1a24946a1929e1c24eb50e0", "input": "Review: For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell \"tearjerker\" in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff6dca0a04dc47f8930994174645acd5", "input": "Review: As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame \"finale\" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff555f7cb37046069f2cf29addc3b75c", "input": "Review: when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6fbf761ab8142ddaba010553925b017", "input": "Review: This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-67443819eb1042dd9bce2089c79fe94c", "input": "Review: A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but \"hilarious\"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a12bd4b30d224907a1935d5d6f4e6f35", "input": "Review: Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3f056f731ae4322a9f71906c93ea54f", "input": "Review: Not knowing what this film was about, I checked it out at the video store and after seeing it, I enjoyed it. Little seen multi-genre flick from director Bernard Rose (Candyman, Immortal Beloved). Great story and characters. As a fan of Glenne Healdy's, I was surprised of her british accent. The only exception for this film was the ending. However, it is worth the rent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-638e4201ef3a44d2ad3fa2627fe77dc3", "input": "Review: ...let me count the ways.1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. 9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.BOMB out of **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bb1bdea9c0f4e8585b1b6a1bb3eab28", "input": "Review: The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became \"flat\" as in a soap opera. If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like \"do you believe in god?\", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6d7a17177674fdb8e7e21a224f30927", "input": "Review: Genghis Cohn is a (very) mildly entertaining British movie about a German police commissioner in the late 1950's who is haunted by the ghost of a Jewish comedian that he killed 15 years earlier while serving under Hitler in the SS. The ghost comes back and wants his killer to live as a Jew to atone for the murders he committed.Otto, the German policeman actually knows this ghost's name because, the last thing he did before he died was said, in Yiddish, `Kiss my ass'. The policeman didn't speak Yiddish, so he asked around until he found the meaning. The `kiss my ass' left such an impression that everybody involved with that killing learned and remembered the comedian's name, Genghis Cohn.There are a bunch of men who are murdered in the jurisdiction of the police commissioner, and there are no helpful clues. The men are murdered with a set of knives that are missing from the local butcher. The butcher announces that his knives are missing while the commissioner is in the store to get a liver and onion sandwich, so the commissioner is a suspect. The first man is killed while making love to the butcher's wife, so the butcher is a suspect. But the butcher maintains that he would be very busy if he killed every man that slept with his wife. All the men are killed immediately after the climax of lovemaking.I think I might be a bit angrier than the ghost of Genghis Cohn if I was killed like he was. He seems to be very good-natured about it, as if he was just in a mild car accident. I can only guess that it is because it is a British movie and they are known for being a very polite people. He uses some of his material from his stand-up routing, and I just didn't find it very funny.I gave this movie a 4 because it was just kind of goofy. I thought it should have been a little more serious than it was. The movie turns out to be a murder mystery (where did this come from?), and it seemed that Genghis should have been more helpful than he was. The movie gave me a tiny look into Jewish culture, but was only skin-deep. Do all Jews love liver and onion sandwiches? Do they all say `shtoop' and `meshuganah' in their daily vocabulary? Isn't there more important stuff that we should know about the culture?I saw this movie at a Jewish community center in Berkeley, CA, and I was the only person in the room whose hair was not fully gray or white. (I have no gray or white hair.) There were 18 of us, and after the movie they stayed for about 20 minutes to discuss the movie. There were 2 main concerns expressed there: 1. The movie was way too light-hearted and future generations might not understand the gravity of what happened and 2. As the Holocaust survivors are dying off, future generations will not know what really happened. I thought that this second concern was ridiculous and I told them I thought they didn't need to worry because there is tons of literature out there and there will always be people who like to watch movies, like myself. The murder of 6,000,000 people by a very bad man will not ever be forgotten. I write this last paragraph because they charged me with telling others about my experience that day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4126b9de4bee4e718d773ca71dcc5951", "input": "Review: Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were \"losers\" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who \"hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office\"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the \"uncool\" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series \"Joan of Arcadia\") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c599659f7e404a3598047de5bdf9e107", "input": "Review: There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming \"You're a super crime-fighting valentine!\"Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming \"HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!\" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final \"twist\" is more \"Huh?\" than \"Hah!\" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b95c170a557b4acdad90f55835b53776", "input": "Review: I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b47b980af23e44559550bc74d6f5a183", "input": "Review: A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until \"Moonlighting\" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, \"Graduate\". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55c0ab8b5b844eeb968cb506078e2b3c", "input": "Review: A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless \"10 Items or Less\" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.Title (Brazil): \"Um Astro em Minha Vida\" (\"A Star in My Life\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93af59f454264b9b9273249b80dea35b", "input": "Review: After seeing 'Break a Leg' in Vancouver at the release party I thought it was a very enjoyable film.I had a few outright belly laughs and some of the cameos (Eric Roberts in particular) were a scream. I haven't heard word about actual release date although I've heard it's close.The story is simple but is mainly a vehicle for the characters and situations. The script is smooth and seamless, the plot develops effortlessly and the acting is comfortable yet fresh. This film has won at least one award from EACH of the film festivals it's been in, which is around 10 - 15 or so.I highly recommend 'Break a Leg'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-163c69a845ad4cf4860d0e250841f86f", "input": "Review: It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f283803151054573ae2e85af6462f6cb", "input": "Review: I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old \"political\" cliches. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-868bf2e1f1a841c38efc52539c72e7a3", "input": "Review: An excellent film with great performances from Zack & Lochley. Much to their displeasure (& mine) Garibaldi arrived on station. (All due respect to Jerry Doyle but in Seasons 4 & 5 I lost sympathy for the character.) It doesn't take him long to start criticizing Zack (who I love best of all on the show)and taking charge. I'm sure Zack could have coped. The Soulhunter plot is fascinating, especially if you believe in heaven as Zack does. The humour supplements it nicely. 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8db362389d2a401f956b8bf6527a038f", "input": "Review: NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8bba69ccafe42ed8d41dbb5779e16a2", "input": "Review: Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0da375887b414b2eacf66d9bcc4d464d", "input": "Review: This show is painful to watch ...It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing \"jobs\", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a \"clique\" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a \"family\" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c5d9708b52146849cb063a07326d340", "input": "Review: This movie is one of my all time favorites. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr...what a cast. Not to mention Sam Jaffe as Gunga Din. Drama, action, adventure and comedy all rolled up into one. The final battle scene still to this day gives me chills and the ending always leaves me in tears. If you haven't seen it, I'd strongly recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccc63c4c86dd4d60958f297b69ebec57", "input": "Review: Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.Below average \"horror\" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.King has his usual cameo as the minister.Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-89ff35c72cea4ef49a30d56968a0538b", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bcc2ce4933e47ecbfe9ea05b0a17953", "input": "Review: Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with \"Shaun Of The Dead\" in 2004, movie on to \"Hot Fuzz 2007\", early 2008 he came out with \"Run Fat Boy Run\" and now comes this, \"How To Lose Friends And Alienate People\" which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy \"Paul\". I Rate this film 81%. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a76b77273f384e64a2e55865ebf3f5cb", "input": "Review: I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6b861072acd41baaf62cac97c46c513", "input": "Review: Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: \"Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery\", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9db2562b1cf4ab69d0d81ce5181929a", "input": "Review: Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it. Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality. Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods. But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more! Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals. Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b71fd5e3095e43a094089c2074b36ad3", "input": "Review: Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3835831d4d3540598546c93a2403267b", "input": "Review: Or released on DVD or screened on a cable channel like Amer. Life TV network. I have been watching another favorite, \"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea\", as well as \"Lost in Space\" and Land of Giants\". They've been showing them forever but aren't receptive to suggestions for other shows. My father and I were big fans as I was already a big science/electronics nut, (still am) and my father was an old school chum of Nader. They both attended Oxy together. I still have memories of several of the episodes even though I was only 9. More so than any show that old. I think it was televised on Sat. after \"Bonanza\". Some of the episodes I recall are the one where he takes the experimental drug that slows down action. Or the one where he body surfs the big ones, (I did that too!) Or the one where there was a mine cave in and he conveys how to use mind control to have the trapped people slow their breathing by entering a trance-like state. That is the one show that I wish I could see again. I got my wish with the original \"Outer Limits\" and \"Sci-Fi Theater...John Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-095a9eb1d9b9444d83ec57ff1e3468c7", "input": "Review: This was a truly bad film. The character \"Cole\" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot lineYuck! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0832fa62be8e49018c7f944b01ea7c5d", "input": "Review: The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. \"It can't matter\", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers \"it must matter\" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5b0ea70c84748a1a19ace54709d3775", "input": "Review: WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbf0346e294641dc83f5087d0e879d50", "input": "Review: I don't know who could find fault with a simply human and funny film like this with lots of delights for your heart. I enjoyed each minute of it and guessed the ending half way through the movie -- but that did not disappoint me at all. It will not only touch your heart but it's such a good family friendly film--we need many more like these! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42b8bcd30d7c4ad29b447b480f016b1d", "input": "Review: This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for \"serious\" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22afac733bbd4c04bb643d821c619561", "input": "Review: First of all, yes, animals have emotions. If you didn't know that already, then I believe you are a moron. But let's assume that none of us are morons. We all know that animals have emotions, and we now want to see how these emotions are manifest in nature, correct?What we get instead is a tedious and ridiculously simplistic documentary that attempts to show how animals are \"human\". The filmmakers search high & low for footage of animals engaged in human-like behaviour, and when it happens they say, \"That monkey is almost human!\" (that's actually a direct quote).Everything is in human terms. They waste time theorizing about what makes dogs \"smile\", but not once do they mention what a wagging tail means. The arrogance of these researchers is disgusting. They even go so far as to show chimpanzees dressed in human clothing and wearing a cowboy hat.I had been expecting an insightful documentary of animals on their own terms. I wanted to learn how animals emote in their OWN languages. But instead, researchers keep falling back on pedantic, anthropomorphic observations and assumptions. Add a cheezy soundtrack and images of chimps \"celebrating Christmas\", and this was enough to turn my stomach.But it doesn't end there. Half of this documentary is filmed not in the wild but in laboratories and experimental facilities. All the camera shots of chimps are through steel bars, and we see how these monkeys are crowded together in their sterile concrete cages. One particularly sobering moment happens near the beginning (though you have to be quick to notice it) where a captive monkey says in sign language, \"Want out. Hurry go.\"Obscure references are made to \"stress tests\" and psychological experiments which I shudder to imagine. Baby monkeys are separated from their mothers at birth and are given wireframe dolls in order to prove that baby monkeys crave a \"mother figure\". And after 40 years of experiments, the smug researchers pat themselves on the back for reaching their brilliant conclusion: monkeys have emotions.One chimp named \"Washoe\" has been in a concrete cage since 1966 for that purpose, and to this day she remains thus. We get a brief glimpse (again through bars) of her leaning against a concrete wall with a rather lackluster expression. Personally, I don't need to see any further experimental data. Washoe, I apologize for our entire species. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-723c193c1f134763af3e9b99d9b51d83", "input": "Review: I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.\"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury.\" That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the \"curse\" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour – by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:-person walks into house-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard -person goes to investigate-sound starts to get loud-person sees a ghost-loud scream and/or cat screech-cut to blackBefore the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end \"with a loud scream and a cut to black.\" We were never proved wrong.The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the \"scariest movie ever made.\" I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56bd3b3194844c80a156cc3dc64bdd9c", "input": "Review: Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3efe5b1c3fa5478384f80e963c804835", "input": "Review: I've always liked Fred MacMurray, and—although her career was tragically cut short—I think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get…a mediocre movie experience.Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) \"meet cute\" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes…it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-89838d53d7d941a5aac70f3734819b4f", "input": "Review: The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2d8f551cef24c0c9414864baa9de296", "input": "Review: Why has this not been released? I kind of thought it must be a bit rubbish since it hasn't been. How wrong can a girl be! This film is, in a word, enthralling.You will be captivated. It holds your attention from the start and its pace never slows.The final part of the film, the \"episode\" as it were (not giving anything away, you saw that in the trailer) is also unmissable. You will chose a favourite, you will be shocked, you wont be able to go and make a cup of coffee because you need to find out what happens. The adrenalin rises and you cant not watch. Cudos to the actors, it's very believable. And it doesn't stop there, they have a final shock for you.It also makes you question reality TV and if you would watch. And how far away from this are we, really? Endemol (who make big brother) made a TV show in Holland last year offering a dying woman's kidney to patients in need of a transplant. The show was revealed at the end to be a hoax, ostensibly to raise awareness of organ donation, but are we getting too close for comfort? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-11431a967d944e35967214b6b7cba158", "input": "Review: I got to say that Uma Thurman is the sexiest woman on the planet. this movie was uber cute and I mean uber cute. It had all the \"sex\" content that most Ivan Reitman comedies have but with something a lil extra, CHEMISTRY. Uma and Luke both have this awkrawrd but believable chemistry that seem to transcend in each scene . Both seem to create this odd, twisted and interesting relationship with powerful \"sexual\" tension that you laugh until you can't feel your face anymore. Anna Farris and the rest of the supporting cast seem to play off each other's roles perfectly and even Wanda Sykes' rather small role will keep you laughing. Though these kind of comedies aren't for everybody, but I have to say I went with a person that doesn't usually enjoy these films and he was laughing like crazy. This movie is certainly not for everyone. especially younger children since some moments are little too...well lets say ADULT for younger viewers. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, tough the ending I found was a little weak compared to the rest of the film. (3 1/2* out of 5*) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-099bdf27123d43a697f1c0f92d0cf1af", "input": "Review: i thought this movie was really really great! Helena did an amazing job in it! I thought she played her character very well! she's an AWESOME actress!! :)the movie was also really funny too! The jokes were great! i couldnt stop laughing! :)i think everyone should see it... :) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85b1a6d7d13f4f709cbf04c3ea070fbd", "input": "Review: Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Please do not waste +/- 2 hours of your life watching this movie - just don't. Especially if someone is fortunate to be snoozing at the side of you. Damn cheek if you ask me. I waited for something to happen - it never did. I am not one of those people to stop watching a movie part way through. I always have to see it through to the end. What a huge mistake. Do yourself a favour and go and paint a wall and watch it dry - far more entertaining. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1106aa2e73974744910060bfd9aeb919", "input": "Review: To finally see what many consider to be the greatest women-in-prison film of all time, I felt like I had accomplished something as ridiculous as that sounds. Boy, it sure contained the elements I expected, and delivered so much more. A constant I'm discovering in these films is the toughness and grit of the actresses in the roles of prisoners preparing for escape while their threshold, tolerance, and resolve(..not to mention sanity)being tested by their superiors. While most of them were hired for the way they look naked, because the nature of the genre demands such gratuitous elements, something else emerges, other attributes, such as attitude and guts, that I ultimately respond to.This, as you may know all too well, was Demme's debut for his mentor Roger Corman, and he provides the target audience with exactly what they desire while putting his own stamp on the proceedings. For instance, there are bizarre dreams certain characters have which define their current psychological states(..there's a particular number featuring warden Barbara Steele where she reminded me of Alex de Large of A Clockwork Orange).The film has female prisoners planning a daring escape, tired of the crazed antics of their wheel-chair bound warden and her nutty prison doc, Randolph(Warren Miller). Juanita Brown is Maggie, the tough, sassy sister who is fed up with the environment and will do whatever it takes to get out. She's the one all the girls fear to cross. Erica Gavin is Jacqueline Wilson, the newest prisoner who was busted by police and sentenced for the murder of a cop, unwilling to give up the names of those she was involved with. Roberta Collins is Belle, a serial kleptomaniac, best pals with Pandora(Ella Reid). Belle becomes the obsession of Randolph who promises Superintendent McQueen(Steele)that through a surgical procedure he can remove her violent tendencies. Drugging her up, Randolph takes nude pictures and sodomizes her, whimpering like a little girl due to his own mental deficiencies while hugging her naked body in his arms. Cheryl Rainbeaux Smith is Lavelle, in prison for life for murdering a scumbag whose relative was a Senator. Lavelle receives work in Randolph's office and is the one responsible for relating his dirty antics to Pandora. Demme effectively builds the movie to the expected finale as a planned break-out, using those behind the various traumas inflicted on the prisoners as hostages, with gunfire erupting.I was quite impressed with the photographic work of long time Demme collaborator, cinematographer Tak Fujimoto, as he is able to establish some visually arresting moments within the cramped confines of the prison, cells and rooms, not an easy task. The prison is appropriately crummy and the girls, despite being quite attractive, look the part of desperate inmates longing, yearning from the very pits of their souls, to escape such horrid entrapment. Steele is superb as the warden, understanding how to take the role close to the brink without going to far, candidly able to express the madness of her repressed character within a restraint..notice how she works her glasses and settles herself without blowing her top particularly when certain behaviors she has contempt for push her teetering to the edge. Cale's bluesy score is incredibly depressing, while also casting a wink to the audience that the movie is still fun-and-games..I think Cale's score mirrors Demme's handling of the material. Cale and Demme's partnership is an uncanny alliance that presents the setting as a sad, isolating, oppressive place, while, almost simultaneously, showcasing a humorous tone that permeates due to the colorful characters thanks in part to the personalities of the cast. My favorite scene happens outside the prison, as two of our girls(..joining forces with a third)interrupt a bank robbery already in progress..the kicker is it was a bank they were planning to rob! As you might expect, you get naked women in showers, prisoner in solitary, a cat fight, shootouts, attempted escapes which go awry, and other exploitative elements(..such as a horrifying shock therapy session, not to exclude the shocking aforementioned sequence where the screwy doc takes advantage of Belle). Interesting enough, Demme relates the film to the audience without a whiff of pretension, understanding exactly the kind of movie he was making. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d9c1781196b487b9d6a3d491adeba2e", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aaa810ec8bd4fafa60d74088ef8acad", "input": "Review: Well, Tenko is without doubt the best British television show ever, the performances, the directing, the casting, the suspense, the drama..... everything is fantastic about it.Although the show fell a little later in its final season, this ending movie picked up the threads nicely and wove a superb story for fans of the show and newbies. I cannot recommend this movie more, find it and watch it. But I do advise watching the series first, as the first 2 seasons are even better than this fantastic movie.An obvious (10/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72b36cd5a59f46eab5e957fcd02f9924", "input": "Review: Simple story... why say more? It nails it's premise. World War 3 kills all or most of the human race and we're viewing 2 of the survivors. The message is that the 2 warring sides should not have been at odds in the first place. Distilled down to representatives from each side, we see they have everything to come together for:Security... Finding resources... food, shelter, etc... Survival... Love...At the end they've decided to pool their resources, (she finally does), so they will survive. Simple story, expressed in the limited budget of the early 60s television landscape. We see it in 2009 as somewhat old and maybe predictable. In the early 60s, no one had seen such stuff... I give it a 10... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-613921c54117410aa6b063dee381830d", "input": "Review: Carla works for a property developer's where she excels in being unattractive, unappreciated and desperate. She is also deaf.Her boss offers to hire in somebody to alleviate her heavy workload so she uses the opportunity to secure herself some male company. Help arrives in the form of Paul, a tattooed hoodlum fresh out of prison and clearly unsuited to the mannered routine of an office environment.An implicit sexual tension develops between the two of them and Carla is determined to keep him on despite his reluctance to embrace the working week. When Carla is edged out of an important contract she was negotiating by a slimy colleague she exploits Paul's criminality by having him steal the contract back. The colleague quickly realises that she's behind the robbery, but when he confronts her, Paul's readiness to punch people in the face comes in handy too - but this thuggery comes at a price. Paul is given a 'going over' by some mob acquaintances as a reminder about an unpaid debt. He formulates a plan which utilises Carla's unique lip reading abilities to rip-off a gang of violent bank robbers. It's now Carla's turn to enter a frightening new world.The fourth feature from director Jacques Audiard, 'READ MY LIPS' begins as a thoroughly engaging romantic drama between two marginalised losers only to shift gears halfway through into an edgy thriller where their symbiotic shortcomings turn them into winners. The leads are excellent; effortlessly convincing us that this odd couple could really connect. Carla's first meeting with Paul is an enjoyable farce in which she attempts to circumnavigate his surly reticence and jailbird manners only to discover that he was, until very recently, a jailbird. Emmanuelle Devos, who plays Carla, has that almost exclusive ability to go from dowdy to gorgeous and back again within a frame. Vincent Cassel plays Paul as a cornered dog who only really seems at home when he's receiving a beating or concocting the rip-off that is likely to get him killed.Like many French films, 'READ MY LIPS' appears, at first, to be about nothing in particular until you scratch beneath the surface and find that it's probably about everything. The only bum note is a subplot concerning the missing wife of Paul's parole officer; a device that seems contrived only to help steer the main thrust of the story into a neat little feelgood cul-de-sac.It was the French 'New Wave' of the 60's that first introduced the concept of 'genre' to film making and I've always felt that any medium is somewhat compromised when you have to use a system of labels to help define it; so it's always a pleasure to discover a film that seems to transcend genre, or better still, defy it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-846f8740c99c4563a92bd9c7233e3e2d", "input": "Review: Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of \"teenagers\" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly \"gynoid\") the Alienator.From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably \"Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers\"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as \"Tara\"), obviously at a low point in her career.Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is \"Quadrant 5\"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an \"alienator\"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from \"Blade Runner\", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.If \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6019a5c1bcbc4526a55e6714df32d957", "input": "Review: For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his \"lesser\" films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!! The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-087672521bc34dd98b820f2da650f2af", "input": "Review: My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47a4d77bb6bf4202a6fb3c79ef0f6f55", "input": "Review: So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b07f7d7957de4968a05f1fdb97c4a8c1", "input": "Review: James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads \"Deliverance\", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were \"Patton\", \"Papillon\", and \"All the President's Men\"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06978f486bd048b680abf179e360a82f", "input": "Review: It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun. I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71b029c63f7b4bbaab3e6967e74750ec", "input": "Review: OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun… even the mush had good dialogue.Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73aa9ed4f1774cf3b5c679b59374be93", "input": "Review: This movie had some andrenaline kickers, but it's an old story that simply could never happen. Navy protocols could never break down that much that a crew much less an XO could ever go that far against the Captain. I'll take Dr. Strangelove any day if I wish to see this plot. Sidenote--the US Navy did not support this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-189bbb36aee94ae7825a000e5d4583d5", "input": "Review: First, this film is not a \"thriller.\" Neither is it \"gripping, taut.\" It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and \"cunning vixen\" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8ba1d7f8b154b9eb39bbb4bf4ff623b", "input": "Review: This movie maybe really bad, but it is alot of fun. The bad acting and poor direction enhance the film's hystericalness. The twins are very funny in their Conanesque roles. If you go into this film expecting the first Conan or Excalibur, than you will hate it. If you watch it while in a good mood and accept it as good, dumb fun you will have a good time. Watch for the scene where they try to hang the brothers, its funniest scene in the film. I wish Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have done this!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0b6eb92996d423186864d7f1b968e72", "input": "Review: \"The Domino Principle\" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream \"I give up!!!\"How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.I hope they spent their money well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae4eba1853674f8f94aaab454687cb86", "input": "Review: Ghost Story (the TV Movie--1972) was the pilot for the NBC series. The movie was well-written and well-acted and, I thought, when the 1972-73 tv season started, if the tv series is half as good as the movie, then NBC has a winner. (I wish this film was available on video!!) The series was a colossal disappointment--even with William Castle as exec. producer. If, however,you have a chance to see the original TV movie, Ghost Story, check it out. You won't be disappointed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53e3975236c6469fb17fb01b6d507f05", "input": "Review: I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-270dc099cca94bd99a2cd4e2449eac6c", "input": "Review: This is an excellent film about a traditional working class family in Northern England. Filmed on location in Bolton, it stars James Mason as the father who is the dominant force within his home. Or so it seems. Cleverly, the film, based on the play, portrays the complexities of family life. The supporting cast is terrific as well, with many familiar faces lending support. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a608016880cb479ca0dcdfc8f81202eb", "input": "Review: by Dane Youssef \"Coonskin\" is film, by the one and only Ralph Bakshi, is reportedly a satirical indictment of blaxploitation films and negative black stereotypes, as well as a look at life black in modern America (modern for the day, I mean--1975). Paramount dropped it like a hot potato that just burst into flame.But this is a Bakshi film, controversial, thrilling, and a must-see almost by definition alone. Not just another random \"shock-jock\" of a movie which tries to shock for the sake of shock. It's by Ralph Bakshi. Anyone who knows the name knows that if HE made a movie, he has something big to say...Although it's roots are based in cheap blaxploitation, \"Coonskin\" isn't just another campy knock-off of mainstream white film or any kind of throwaway flick. \"Coonskin\" wants to be more. It aims it's sights higher and fries some much bigger fish.The movie doesn't just poke fun at the genre. Nor does it just indict black people, but actually seems to show love, beauty and heart in the strangest places.\"Coonskin\" tells a story out of some convicts awaiting a jail-break. The fact that it's even possible to break out of a prison in the \"Coonskin\" world alone makes it old-fashioned.One of the inmates tells a story about a trio of black brothers in Harlem named Brother Bear, Brother Rabbit, Preacher Fox who want respect and a piece of the action and are willing to get it by any means necessary. The Itallian mob is running all the real action.Big name black musicians star: Barry White and Scatman Crothers, as well as Charles Gordone, the first black playwright to take home the Pulitzer. Something big is happening here obviously.The movie plays out like a descent into this world, this side of the racial divide. From an angry, hip, deep, soulful black man with a hate in his heart and a gun in his hand.Bakshi's films never know the meaning of the word \"sublety.\" This one looks like it's never even heard of the word. But maybe a subject like this needs extremism. Real sledgehammer satire. Some subjects can't be tackled gently.Bakshi is god-dammed merciless. Here, no member or minority of the Harlem scene appears unscathed.The characters here are \"animated\" to \"real\" all depending on what the mood and situation are. The animated characters and the human ones all share the same reality and are meant to be taken just as literally.Bakshi never just shows ugly caricatures just for shock value. He always has something to say. Nor is black-face is gratuitously. Here, unlike in Spike Lee's \"Bamboozled,\" he seems to be using it to try and really say something.Like 99.9% of all of Bakshi's films, this one incorporates animation and live-action. Usually at the same time. Bakshki isn't just being gimmicky here. All of this technique is all intertwined, meshing together while saying something.Somehow, this one feels inevitably dated. Many of these types of films (Bakshi's included) are very topical, very spur of the moment. They reflect the certain trend for the day, but looking back of them years later, there's just an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia (as well as timeless truth).Even though the music, clothes, slang and the city clearly looks like photos that belong in a time capsule, the attitude, the spirit and the heart remain the same no matter what f--king ear it is. Anyone who's really seen the movies, the state of things and has been in company of the people know what I'm talking about.Even some of the of the black characters are a bunny (junglebunny), a big ol' bear and a fox. One of the most sour and unsavory racist characters is a dirty Harlem cop who's hot on the trail of these \"dirty n-----s\" after the death of a cop. But for him, it's not just business. Nor is it for the rest of the brothers who wear the shield. It's just pure sadistic racist pleasure of hurting blacks.The sequence involving the Godfather and his lady is one of the most moving pieces in the whole film, of which there are many. It plays out like an opera or a ballet.The promo line: WARNING: \"This film offends everybody!\" This is not just hype. Proceed with extreme caution.You have been warned...by Dane Youssef Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7dcf240dd0d3436cb724631020d23ec3", "input": "Review: I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing \"contestant\" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is \"doing good\", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36ea8f4792984fc284a35d4653794c5f", "input": "Review: Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-501a7ffd9267425fa752c8e3e8520250", "input": "Review: I'm here again in your local shopping mall (of course, 'cause that's where the high school kids hang out!!!!!) to demonstrate how awful \"BENDY POO: PROM COURIER\" really is!!!!! To prove how bad this joke of a DCOM this is......we're going to take these four sumo wrestlers, and stuff them into this photo booth. How...cozy!!!!! Hai! Huuuuuuuarrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh!!!!! How awful is it????? It's so bad, Disney Channel flushes away its money, yet again, with those exciting yet determining 10-second promos, keeping the viewers wondering, \"WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE ON?????\" And then, suddenly, when it DOES come on, for one, this not only got a higher TV rating than usual, but this was only seen once!!!!! Oh, no!!!!! One time everyone!!!!! Plus, this movie is about high school and stuff, and believe me, I will NOT go any further with what else is in there.....Say ch...smile!!!!! (SNAP!) Avoid this one at all costs. 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bba85be6fed4f28a13667113c437a36", "input": "Review: Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between \"Days of Thunder\" and \"Apollo 13.\" And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of \"Thunderbird 6\" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9dc1432320e848d7987f441e79d0a888", "input": "Review: The reasons to watch this knock off... err... tribute to a great movie called Se7en: - It's on while your channel surfing and there's nothing else on. - Someone pays you to watch it.Do yourself a favor and pop in the DVD for Se7en, rent it, download it on iTunes, or put it in your Netflix cue and skip The Flock entirely. The Flock the same story with with a few changes. Furthermore the editing just wreaks of Se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. The worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots, with sounds of people people chattering over the radio, except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one.Bottom line: I call it a blatant knock off. If you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film, go ahead, but either way go watch Se7en. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b370d5f51edf4397867f658e72af6f1f", "input": "Review: This movie is goofy as hell! I think it was written as a serious film, but then when it came time to film, Michael Cooney said \"Hey, let's throw in some humor and spice it up!\" The characters are actually slightly developed, too. Oh, and the death sequences are the best. One thing I hate, though, was the hairdryer-weapons. What was that all about? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-800efabf6cc64dfca548abd48dd5b799", "input": "Review: OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fee932a4d8324833beb0cfc2bf6a0fbe", "input": "Review: Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining \"Honey I Shrunk the Kids\". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from \"Honey I Shrunk the Kids\".Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-976f3dcdc4d849ba8c70cf158acb100e", "input": "Review: Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this..\"can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!\". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a \"so bad it's good\" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c7e3876beec4059a5f317488b68e880", "input": "Review: There's no romance or other side plot to this movie, it's action and intrigue all the way, making it a real man's kung-fu movie.An aging master dispatches his last disciple Yan Tieh to stop his five former pupils who's styles represents five venomous animals centipede,snake, scorpion, lizard and the toad. Despite the word \"Venom\" in the title, none of these pupil uses venoms to kill their opponents. Yan Tieh told by his teacher that he's no match for the five former pupil, must find one he can form an alliance with to defeat the other four. How Yan Tieh and the others find each other is the intrigue to the story, with good kung-fu action spread out throughout the story.Recognized as a cult classic, this movie has already established itself in the annals of kung- fu action movies. It's known well enough that other movies make reference to the five styles depicted in this story.It's no artistic masterpiece, with the usual bad dubbing, and corny acting, but the movie is one of the best of its kind, because its so focused on the all the ingredients of kung-fu action movie of its time, and gives an extra concentrated dose of them.One movie you must watch if you are a kung-fu movie fan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3be9722379d64ae7915045b4e0cf9b3a", "input": "Review: Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly \"flying bed\" scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.A great film that still holds up today!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7348033bfa54f64a2f29cea146a825b", "input": "Review: It's not well shot, well written or well acted but it has to be the most addictive show I've seen since Twin Peaks. Every single revelation is timed so well that you have to see the next episode to get any kind of closure. They have even slowed down the pace of the show where they only reveal tiny amounts of information per episode however it feels like they've just told you everything you wanted to know. However some of the acting is just about awful and some of the duologue is downright brutal. Some characters are very two dimensional. The more experienced actors like Locke and Ecko really stand out over actors who play Jack, Kate, Sayid and so on. The development of the show can also be very frustrating as the following episode may not show what the previous episode lead up to. Annoying side plots have become part of the story that sometimes tell you nothing. However, the second season has developed to a point where back stories reveal more about the island than they had previously. All in all its a great show but not perfect. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-37b03e3c58774bf7b847840d65e840cb", "input": "Review: This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date (\"The Trip\", \"Joy Ride\", \"Jeepers Creepers\") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3793ce37fdb49d78f2cbe5d28804cef", "input": "Review: This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f583bc7f204d4dc4a30682021bd4433c", "input": "Review: Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portman…if there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-179c4ef2ce6841cba945e5ca5206f60d", "input": "Review: When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of \"tension and release\" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c298bc1dbf134d2e920e137af85aa79a", "input": "Review: Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0788552d708b4ed7afa4c4f9ece9afd6", "input": "Review: A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1de510432f59435da2d7b9841f79f22d", "input": "Review: Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc4e146688f041c1be6d76496c0b453c", "input": "Review: Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as \"big man\" in contrast to Spike's \"kid out of control\" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song \"This Is Not A Love Song\" and as the title of the film is quite smart.Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f3fbaca49114abf94c1d0c14e26ae26", "input": "Review: i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not \"good, clean fun.\" the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-70ba6d35a2b14742b5448836597e28d7", "input": "Review: The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of \"Tintorera\" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f30b20abdf54be7a3d87560def5d407", "input": "Review: I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show. Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes. The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7bd6ae06dce743caa69a828f058eb088", "input": "Review: Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23f96d1cc6e1429588741c08c86657c2", "input": "Review: \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to \"Pause\" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy \"jerking off\". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? So \"Victor Vargas\" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the \"fast forward\" button. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b881c70f2e054baca65c4786f2fb6832", "input": "Review: I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a \"good\" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the \"Time Machine\" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58e3da4f52574021a305c22d6e1b71ce", "input": "Review: I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show. Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes. The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b985fe9418f84ee19af9c30f5a6a9742", "input": "Review: The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live') Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f395ea97ed24f979db69eb1042840a3", "input": "Review: Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3787803c351248cb8a1bf74d6b86b445", "input": "Review: This is an early film \"Pilot\" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around \"exterminating\" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8356796a1e449c880f1a70bed2e7067", "input": "Review: Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85bfd133427b455c95c3935d70f0638d", "input": "Review: In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like \"Empire of the Ants\", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eff7d6079d64efaa324d642706e673e", "input": "Review: I already loved \"How the Grinch Stole Christmas\" when it was released and I'm still loving it now, 5 years later. Still lots of people seem to disagree with my opinion and this movie never really had received much love at the time it came out.Sure, the movie is over-the-top and campy but that at the very same is also the reason why this movie is so charming and fun to watch. All of the sets, costumes and characters are done perfectly over-the-top in a fun way, without ever becoming truly ridicules. It's a visually spectacular movie to watch. It's a campy movie making at its very best! Director Ron Howard really surprises with this fun little Christmas movie.Main reason why the movie works and why it's so much fun to watch is Jim Carrey as the Grinch. He truly carries the movie with his good and fun role. He is of course helped by the convincing make-up, which also received an Academy Award. Of course if you're a Jim Carrey hater you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. This movie is really his movie and he makes it all work and so much fun to watch. Other fun and memorable roles are being played by Jeffrey Tambor, Clint Howard and Josh Ryan Evans as the young Grinch.The movie has a good morale but it is all a bit sappy to me. Perhaps it's because I'm Dutch and we don't really celebrate Christmas that enthusiastic and big here, as in the United States or England. For me the movie was simply fun and entertaining and the morale just left me quite cold to be honest.The musical score by James Horner is good and fun, even though it's your average every day Horner stuff, it still all works perfectly for the movie and helps to make some of the scene's work.Perfect Christmas entertainment.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9eea6e0763b545b88d1aceaa327af47c", "input": "Review: Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do.. all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...Peace out!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60817048742c4819be9457a04cd5f769", "input": "Review: I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the \"actors\", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.Watching this \"film\" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes \"KaZaam\" look like a Meryl Streep film.I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d27e051abbee43b09a2909a4e39b01a1", "input": "Review: First of all, when people hear 'GUY RITCHIE', they immediately think of SNATCH. Yes, Snatch was a good movie, but the problem is that everyone associates Guy Ritchie to Snatch. They don't expect him to explore new frontiers. This movie REVOLVER is different than snatch; it's much darker and is very complex. The reason I gave a rating of 10 is because I've had to watch Revolver 3 times to understand everything. So this movie toys with your head. It's very cleverly written.This movie is different than Snatch. It was done wonderfully, the cinematography is beautiful, and you can recognize Guy Ritchie's personal touch (style of directing) in it.What won me over was the complexity of the protagonist and how we are left with more questions than answers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bde370149214c0db08ed27dd2e150a2", "input": "Review: Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.Amateur in the extreme! Avoid! Avoid! Avoid! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad846592438343a6a8b544445f97653a", "input": "Review: The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6045e16c82a346e79741e4be7407e715", "input": "Review: Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say \"weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills\".Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.Superwonderscope says : 1 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3dbdbc5fa67448abf1a1df78373dabe", "input": "Review: In this little film we have some great characters but a very shallow plot. It is actually nice to watch because Singleton does a great job at presenting the esoteric conflicts and the interpersonal relationships. This makes the viewer forget the nonexistent realism that this movie supposedly is for. In fact what we have here is all the possible cliches and stereotypes put on celluloid in a rate higher than that of a soap. Definitely not a deep movie (even if it wants to be), but better than an average college movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e3f914f9f524e18aebaa383e40517f8", "input": "Review: \"The Groove Tube\" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany \"Modern Problems\". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after \"Modern Problems\" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus \"Tunnelvision\" and \"Kentucky Fried Movie\" (although I might also include \"The Truman Show\"). Really funny.I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6c07cdc7bf44f6f8808f8f0dcbb24e4", "input": "Review: I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-25be956fde1a4ae09f511c2e0a05f237", "input": "Review: This is a rip off of the old Frankenstein premise. An acclaimed scientist is killed in a freakish accident and his father, a noted brain surgeon saves the brain. It is then put into a robotic body of his own design. His brother, an electrical genius, gives the 'colossus' impetus to transfer thoughts into motion. The whole project goes bad, when the creation goes berserk.Special effects are undeveloped. The script is lacking. And it is humorous that this is not scary a bit. Well, very small kids will think this is good. If you are wide awake at three in the morning and this comes on....night, night.The lead characters are played by Otto Kruger, John Baragrey and Ross Martin. Ed Wolff played the 'Colossus'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0671a547b751448390647208943d359e", "input": "Review: I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as \"Love's a bitch!\") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5aa01d858b474085bcb08a82bc72eb2e", "input": "Review: Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd72ae65bf8b435394a74054f7c055e2", "input": "Review: Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching. Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel) and Jeff (Michael C. Maronna) are about to graduate from Holden University with Honors in lying, cheating and scheming. The three roommates have proudly scammed their way through the last four years of college and now, during final exams, these big-men-on-campus are about to be busted by the most unlikely dude in school. The plot is very stupid and there's no reason why to watch this unless your looking to shut off you brain for a little while. Slackers is just a predictable teen flick that really adds nothing new to the genre. The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie. Its really just a collection of gags and some are actually pretty funny. Though for every joke that works there's at least eight more that don't. The screenplay is full of penis and breast jokes that some high school and college students may enjoy. Even if they do they probably won't remember this film after awhile as its not a very memorable comedy. Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low. Jaime King and Devon Sawa are the other main stars but they do a rather poor job in this film. This is directed by Dewey Nicks and this is his first film so you can't blame him too much. The funniest character was probably Laura Prepon though, she's not in the movie very much. The film is very short at only 86 minutes long however, that may be too long for some people who don't really like this type of humor. Slackers isn't the worst film of 2002 but certainly is below average. When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc. So unless you have seen most of them and you're looking for something new then Slackers might fit that bill but its better if you just watch something else. Rating 4.3/10 a below average teen comedy that's worth skipping. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c359f5c42b8144a4aaa3390a30042746", "input": "Review: Hollow Point, though clumsy in places, manages to be an extremely endearing and amusing action movie.The primary entertainment value here is humor - everyone turns in clever performances that provide the film with a great deal of energy.Oh, by the way, advocates of gun safety will be horrified by the conduct of the characters in this movie... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cac938a70eb46af9b19ad05d7712fda", "input": "Review: What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across \"Quite Ugly...\", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.I obviously had too much faith. Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.I dread to think what's going to happen with \"Country Of The Blind\" if this is the benchmark...Please, just avoid it... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cbb2d376e26477d89569545f8b10d8f", "input": "Review: As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that \"one step out of place and (you're dead)\". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a \"sick man\". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2223bb2298f243d98eb3e859f2826d94", "input": "Review: I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to \"The Blair Witch Project\". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled \"Army of 2\".The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says \"Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag\".I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.A+. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f28355fb1bc245d7a3c209619321d5be", "input": "Review: A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the \"bed\" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46a2e2da54634bc4a8441b06e26e4e7b", "input": "Review: I saw this at the premiere in MelbourneIt is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself \"this is the best I could have done with the material\".Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.Such is life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fb6a3d7faf242b393b211f96fdf0719", "input": "Review: Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portman…if there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fefc9120ae6d437bb0132e7a43085b5a", "input": "Review: This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3501db490ea847a6b749ca0aca853570", "input": "Review: I saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb93c11ef6464efb85699db257b0fee2", "input": "Review: Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-045c25237df3431c8316b060d2f3623d", "input": "Review: I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccd87275cdf7495998b7f821e60d0861", "input": "Review: I remember watching this movie with my friends when we were 4 years old, but the weird thing is that I never watched it after that. The other day I was babysitting and my cousin never saw All Dogs Go To Heaven so we rented both movies and watched them together today and he really loved these movies. So many memories came back watching this movie once again and I have to admit I even cried a little. I'm 22 years old and the ending still gets to me. All Dogs Go To Heaven is one of the most touching animated films and I'm shocked honestly by this rating of 5.8, I thought this movie would bring back good memories for others as well. I admit the animation was a bit typical but the story is just so charming and fun.Charlie is a gambling dog who gets killed by another gambling dog, Carface. But when Charlie wants revenge he comes back to Earth with a watch that can't stop ticking or that's the end of his life again. When he and his best friend, Itchy, look for Carface and spy on him they find out how Carface gets all his money, he has a little orphan girl who talks to animals and finds out who is going to win the races. Charlie takes the girl, Ann-Marie, and makes fake promises in order to get the money. But he ends up learning that maybe he should put Ann-Marie first before himself when Carface goes back to him with a vengeance.All Dogs Go To Heaven is the perfect family film, it's not Disney, but this is an excellent family film to watch. Not to mention that it's just so cute and touching. I know it's ridicules and some people call me crazy, but this movie for me when I was a kid made me believe that dogs have souls. How could they not? They're just so loving, and I think I'm going to cry again. But anyways, I would just recommend this movie for anyone, it's a fun movie to watch.7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d145acf2a3b46229f7b8e61f72955c2", "input": "Review: This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c20d70d3b4eb4f52be455cb1f4fd433b", "input": "Review: Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4decfb8ebd7e413c9f0d4b3dc34055df", "input": "Review: Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution – his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier – talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life – living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army – swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast – Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from \"grand spectacle\" to \"small story\" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy – that feeling of \"being there\" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3df5f857927b4f35be37e637f9341834", "input": "Review: I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6f209bd0d934fce8093b8360634e673", "input": "Review: This episode of Twilight Zone combines a silent section (1890) with melodramatic acting and sight gags, an homage to the early Buster Keaton films. Lots of slapstick: Buster falling on a bulkhead door, falling in a puddle, running around pants-less. Silly scientist's invention of a Time Helmet, reminiscent of a Flash Gordon idea of what the future would be. Cheap prices, like $1.95 for ladies hats, or 17 cents a pound for beef seem outrageously high to Buster. Even the world of 1890 is too much for Buster/Mulligan. How shocking when he is mistakenly transported to the \"modern\" world of 1960! Buster was trying to go backwards! The \"scientist\" of that time wants to return to a calmer world, the 1890 that he has studied and admired. They go back together, and Buster/Mulligan is now happy and the \"scientist\" regrets not having electronic equipment, modern beds or an electric blanket. So Buster sends him back with the crazy helmet.This Twilight Zone doesn't have a heavy message. Since Buster Keaton died in 1966, it is one of his last efforts. That's enough.One other cute thing--longtime underutilized Maytag Man Jesse White is a repairman who fixes the Time Helmet--foreshadowing his washing machine career. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec5bd61bed72417e95f258999799612c", "input": "Review: And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, \"The Real\" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since \"Bucket of Blood\"), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-31887a15959b4fb2bd0562243ce57553", "input": "Review: An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a2d6528bd05411a9354b83ad71f0f8c", "input": "Review: For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, \"Life\" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb81e8d9ded3470d86dbf78ca6158536", "input": "Review: Falls into the film category of \"Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously\". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place. Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d8b2d346a1a4b3f83499a5eac2e3d17", "input": "Review: I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e81f153c0ec4d87964f53fd4dfa3838", "input": "Review: Marvelous James Stewart, Vera Miles vehicle. What makes this historical film dealing with the FBI so good is the family element that is involved during a 35 year career as depicted by Stewart in the film.The film shows a history of the great investigatory agency. It deals with airplane bomb plots, killing off of Indians in Oklahoma for real estate gain, fighting organized crime, Nazis and Communists in that order. The human element is never far behind as Stewart weds Vera Miles. They raise 3 children as Miles' heart goes out each time Stewart goes out on assignment.Look for a brief but memorable performance by Murray Hamilton. Years later, he appeared as Mr. Robinson in 1967's \"The Graduate.\"The film has nothing but praise for J. Edgar Hoover. He certainly brought the FBI up to par.True, this could be viewed as right-wing propaganda, especially with Stewart's real-life Republican views, but it's well done, historically informative, and the view of the family so well depicted. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee0516052d93431da2cddf9f981e5eec", "input": "Review: (SPOILERS included) This film surely is the best Amicus production I've seen so far (even though I still have quite a few to check out). The House that Dripped Blood is a horror-omnibus…an anthology that contains four uncanny stories involving the tenants of a vicious, hellish house in the British countryside. A common mistake in productions like this is wasting too much energy on the wraparound story that connects the separate tales…Peter Duffel's film wisely doesn't pay too much attention to that. It simply handles about a Scotland Yard inspector who comes to the house to investigate the disappearance of the last tenant and like that, he learns about the bizarre events that took place there before. All four stories in this film are of high quality-level and together, they make a perfect wholesome. High expectations are allowed for this film, since it was entirely written by Robert Bloch! Yes, the same Bloch who wrote the novel that resulted in the brilliant horror milestone `Psycho'… We're also marking Peter Duffel's solid and very professional debut as a director. The four stories – chapters if you will – in the House that Dripped Blood contain a good diversity in topics, but they're (almost) equally chilling and eerie. Number one handles about a horror-author who comes to the house, along with his wife, in order to find inspiration for his new book. This starts out real well, but after a short while, his haunted and stalked by the villain of his own imagination. The idea in this tale isn't exactly original…but it's very suspenseful and the climax is rather surprising. The second story stars (Hammer) horror-legend Peter Cushing as a retired stockbroker. Still haunted by the image of an unreachable and long-lost love, he bumps into a wax statue that looks exactly like her. Cushing is a joy to observe as always and – even though the topic of Wax Museums isn't new – this story looks overall fresh and innovating. This chapter also contains a couple of delightful shock-moments and there's a constant tense atmosphere. It's a terrific warm-up for what is arguably the BEST story: number 3. Another legendary actor in this one, as Christopher Lee gives away a flawless portrayal of a terrified father. He's very severe and strict regarding his young daughter and he keeps her in isolation for the outside world. Not without reason, since the little girl shows a bizarre fascination for witchcraft and voodoo. Besides great acting by Lee and the remarkable performance of Chloe Franks as the spooky kid, this story also has a terrific gothic atmosphere! The devilish undertones in this story, along with the creepy sound effects of thunder, make this story a must for fans of authentic horror. The fourth and final story, in which a vain horror actor gets controlled by the vampire-cloak he wears, is slightly weaker then the others when it comes to tension and credibility, but that the overload of subtle humor more or less compensates that. There's even a little room for parody in this story as the protagonist refers to co-star Christopher Lee in the Dracula series! Most memorable element in this last chapter is the presence of the gorgeous Ingrid Pitt! The cult-queen from `The Vampire Lovers' certainly is one of the many highlights in the film…her cleavage in particular. No doubt about it…The House that Dripped Blood will be greatly appreciated by classic horror fans. I truly believe that, with a bit of mood-settling preparations, this could actually be one of the few movies that'll terrify you and leave a big impression. Intelligent and compelling horror like it should be! Highly recommended. One extra little remark, though: this film may not…repeat MAY NOT under any circumstances be confused with `The Dorm that Dripped Blood'. This latter one is a very irritating and lousy underground 80's slasher that has got nothing in common with this film, except for the title it stole. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33058551a179405999601e457daca9c0", "input": "Review: This movie was directed by Victor Nunez who also wrote the screenplay (Ulee's Gold). Nice and straightforward writing, that was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award, looking at Ruby's day to day life. What we see is a slice in the life of the young woman Ruby. Ashley Judd (Sisters) won the Independent Spirit Award Best Female Lead for this role. Ruby is starting to live on her own and establishing her own identity. She explores jobs, friendships, boy friends, sex, a typical young adult search. The movie won Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. As an independent film enthusiast I picked the movie because of Sundance. I appreciate this type of movie, because it does not carry the Hollywood baggage.Although the stories are completely different this reminded me of Nobody's Fool, staring Paul Newman. The later movie is a slice of the daily life of a common man. I like that. The story is very nicely told, and all we had to do was sit and enjoy the story. The only thing I am not sure about is the title. I am sure that there are not that many bugs, and flies in paradise as there are in Florida. As I am allergic to mosquitos, Florida is no paradise to me, I itch all over thinking about Florida. I turn into a complete red boil. I recommend this movie! Favorite scenes: Ruby and her friend Rochelle Bridges, played by Allison Dean walking at the beach of Panama City, Florida. Indeed the sand is very white. I have been there. Favorite Quotes: \"Necessity has always been a good excuse.\" \"All that fuss over finding a man is not at all different now, who is going to be and when and why.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f27e3e53be9d4c0d84eff9e40a143610", "input": "Review: This amazing Oscar winner (4 in total) and John Ford's first Academy Award winner, is simply spellbinding with a pounding score by Max Steiner. Called an Art film, because Ford had very little money to make this great story about guilt and retribution, and greed and stupidity. But what makes this movie such a classic, is the direction and astounding photography and use of fog and lighting, that was so different from the usual American film, and more in the tradition of German expressionism. And the Oscar winning performance by Victor McLaglen as the drunken Gypo is simply unbelievable. Basically the movie takes place in Ireland, and Gypo turns in a friend in the rebel movement to the English to collect 20 pounds to give to his girlfriend. But having all that money, he starts blowing it on an all night drunk and giving it away, while the leaders of the movement are trying to track down the informer. The whole movie is one night in a dark and foggy Ireland, and a cast of characters that are memorable but all along, the whole world of Gypo is closing in on him, both psychologically. If I had to pick maybe three directors to have ALL their movies on a deserted island forever, and nobody elses, John Ford would certainly be one of them. What a truly remarkable movie... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ff3d06be9a64f479cc1776797ce02e3", "input": "Review: Initially, I would have thought that Secret Sunshine had something critical to say of religion (and here being Christianity), and wondered if it would be something of a rant against the ills of blind faith, or the manipulative power of those who are supposedly holier than thou. Surprisingly, it was none of the sort and was largely non-judgemental, putting in place events as a matter of fact, and allowing the audience to draw their own judgement and conclusion.And I can't help but to chuckle at the role of Song Kang-ho, a man who's taken a liking for widower Shin-ae (Jeong Do-yeon), and starts going to church when she does. The reasons for church going are many I suppose, either to find inner peace, to seek help, being afraid of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell, to reaffirm faith, or even things like wanting to get married in a church, or to skirt chase (I kid you not). But to each his own reasons for turning up in church every Sunday and participating in prayer groups for fellowship, what is indeed dangerous, is when the underlying ulterior motives, do not get satisfied, and that's when frustration sets in. Or when you discover how hypocritical man can be, portraying one face inside the house of God, and displaying yet another outside.Shin-ae and her son Jun moves to the town of Miryang, which is the birthplace of her deceased husband. Wanting to start life anew, she opens up a piano shop to give lessons, though in discovering her new found freedom and in a moment's lack of good judgement, has another tragedy befall her. And that takes one hour to get to. Secret Sunshine really took its time to get to this point, where things then begin to get slightly more interesting with Shin-ae now taking to embracing religion to deal with and accept her current state, reveling in the comfort that religion, and fellow believers, can offer.What began as crying out for sympathy turns into acceptance and belief that religion offers that silver bullet to solve the ills of all mankind, and sometimes you wonder if it's because of your personal myopic view of what the almighty is doing for you, that you begin to adopt a somewhat selfish opinion that everything's good going your way, and in Shin-ae's case, her magnanimous attitude in wanting to forgive others who had trespassed against her, forgetting something very fundamental that it the feeling can cut both ways too.The last act is probably the most fun of the lot as it says plenty, where most of us can identify with - why me, and why not someone else, as we rage against our faith and start questioning, unfortunately, with no hard and fast answers available. It is then either we fall by the wayside, or continue with destructive deeds so rebelliously. But somehow the plug gets carefully pulled in Secret Sunshine so as not to offend, and what could have been an ugly character mouthpiece, got muted.If you bite into the hype this movie is generating, then perhaps you'll realize only Jeong Do- yeon's excellent portrayal is worth mentioning, as she totally owns her role as the widow Shin-ae who is probably the most unluckiest person on Earth in having to deal with that many tragedies over a short period of time, and if you look at it carefully, most of which are of her own doing. Watching her transformation, is worth the ticket price, and despite having my personal favourite Korean actor Song Kang-ho in the movie, this is something he just breezed right through. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-092e11593e214cca976e08b4deb2449f", "input": "Review: Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out \"evil empire\", to use flippant Star War terms.So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - \"Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard\". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of \"cinema verite'\" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its \"honesty\" but...Look at the back of the box: \"Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution\" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a \"warm regard\"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire.\" Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee0b00c1e4304ee281bcfe3657e79161", "input": "Review: I imagine that the young people involved in the making of \"Necromancy\" (aka \"The Witching\" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play (\"The Cradle Will Rock\"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading (\"The War of the Worlds\"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time (\"Citizen Kane\"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary \"Bugs Bunny Superstar\" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary \"The Man who Saw Tomorrow\" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c11e31e45134bc49ebc8062d7dca950", "input": "Review: A meteor drops from the sky and reawakens a plesiosaur that long ago used to terrorize the area around Crater Lake . As the monster eats the locals they try and find away of killing the monster.Recent attempts at sending up old horror and science fiction films like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Alien Trespass are kind of rendered moot when you have films like Crater Lake Monster available for screening. It's the sort of film that those films spoof and send up only this is the real deal. Its everything those films try to be only with out the tongue in cheek and its so much more fun because of it. This is a real drive-in sort of film that had the unfortunate luck of coming just as Star Wars changed the way we look at special effects. The monster, a mix of stop motion and a life size head, is a charmingly quaint little beast. The filmmakers spoil the audience with frequent shots of the monster and its mayhem. Sure its clear that its all fake, but isn't movies about suspension of disbelief? Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way. If you want a real authentic drive in monster movie look no farther. This would be perfect for a double or triple feature with similar lake monster films (Boggy Creek etc.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c67930a184b4d68a9c67a9a0ef63b4a", "input": "Review: I have lost count of how many reviews I've written on Slaughter High. I've read a lot of bad ones and I will say right now this is a fantastic movie. Simon Scuddamore made his fame in a short time for his well known suicide, and even though this was his only film, he is what made the movie so great. At first I did not know anything about Simon until I read a review about his suicide. Then I found out due to the current webpage at www.IMDb.com he was born in 1957, in Dayton, Ohio. Simon may have played the most pathetic character known to man, but his real life self certainly had their strenghths and weaknesses. He did a good acting job, who can disagree? I always wondered how he felt showing himself naked in a movie. Must have been pretty embarrassing to say the least. I first saw this movie when I was 12 in the sixth grade. I agree with some pointers like the girl would not take a bath after somebody was murdered, and that high schools do NOT have bath tubs! I think Caroline Munro who was 36 at the time was the only other star that had any dignified acting talent, and unfortunately for Simon's death he made no future films. The reason(s) for his suicide are a mystery, and hopefully will be discovered in the near future. Doing the math on his webpage it tells you he was 29 years old when he made Slaughter High. He looked like a teenager. I give this film two thumbs up, the best horror film made. Probably because of their horrible acting the others didn't make fame in the movie business. -Jacob Young Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8052185cfb5f40fa8f9782dd339fa461", "input": "Review: I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef1a6dfe77b547b89d1ec09481953239", "input": "Review: The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1719d91ed3c44d57aae1165633cc072f", "input": "Review: Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and \"passionate nature\" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44ae31053cd54f78a87f0239310ca8a5", "input": "Review: I haven't seen this film in years so my knowledge is a little rusty. I do remember thinking that this film is twice the film of Braveheart. It is simply more realistic and has more believable characters. Ridb Roy looks like one would imagine Rob Roy to look like, messy hair and beard with simple clothing. Also the Liam Nesson has a Celtic look about him, he looks like a Scot and more importantly looks like Rob Roy. It's a comparison which angers some people but compare him to Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Gibson is supposedly playing a man who's legend has caused him to be described as a 6 foot 7 giant while Gibson is almost a foot shorter. The story contains a little romance, conspiracy and an underdog story. Sound anything like Braveheart? But instead of a film that cries out \"freedom\", liberty and nationalism we get a film which says honour, love and justice. This makes it a more interesting film. Much like Gladiator. The cast is fantastic and Liam Nesson is a very strong leader in this endeavour. The story is great with how it deals with heroism and humanity. The scene where Mary is raped and she walks out of the burning house with a look of true Scottish strength is followed by her washing the semen from her crotch in an extreme panic. This is something a heroine in Braveheart would never do. Overall this is a stunning and almost flawless watch. Go and see it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdef3bd8eb0348699e3567cf7ee64ceb", "input": "Review: The Finnish version of Robert Altman's \"Short Cuts\", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the \"routines\" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eef51e5d58724f2981655adf4af47882", "input": "Review: There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by \"mayor\" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb302d8b16b8434181cd4ed325ab8e8a", "input": "Review: This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks \"vampire politics\" are more important than her.Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70af3b6ddaaa402f804769d95de11273", "input": "Review: This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29168da78c2b42d48b0778d024eb9956", "input": "Review: I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is \"original.\" It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British \"Carry On ...\" series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a \"Harry Potter\" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride (\"Boston Public,\" Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f671e7c985e84d709c3b5e141dbb4dbf", "input": "Review: A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53b219a544b842d9bbff7de43dc73dd9", "input": "Review: Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c26a51a18be8466db523bff843ff2637", "input": "Review: This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life. Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks \"What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers. But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art. We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b03397224f74d22a953c67df4a084fa", "input": "Review: What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike \"Ray\" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-05af23ff1c5a4fc58eec250893ae21a4", "input": "Review: I have never been one to shy away from saying that most action films just plain do nothing for me. Most times they are blatant vehicles to blow stuff up, show off sexy models, and throw any semblance of reality or intelligence out the window. With that said, the Bourne series has been fantastic. Doug Liman ushered in a new take on action by using a more cinema verite style, showing the fights in full force and making our super spy someone we can relate to emotionally as well as humanly. This is not the sci-fi absurdity that was Bond (before they did an overhaul in the style of this series no less). There was a lot to worry for when the Bourne Supremacy came out. With director Paul Greengrass taking over, what could have been a second-hand copy of the original ended up being an improvement in style and flair. The stakes were raised and the story was enhanced because of it. Greengrass needs to be given a ton of credit for being able to keep up appearances with the latest installment, The Bourne Ultimatum. In what is an amazing conclusion to a top-notch trilogy, the action is brought to a new level and story and performance are never compromised.Once again, Bourne is brought into the minds of the CIA by false pretenses. Someone has leaked information about the Treadstone upgrade called Blackbriar and once Bourne is located trying to converse with the newswriter who broke the story, he is assumed to be the mole. Only Pamela Landy, she who was on the case to find him in Supremacy, knows that he can't be the one. Bourne's motive has always been to stay clear of the government and live his life in peace. It has been the CIA who keeps bringing him back into the open to wreak havoc on them. What ends up transpiring is that Bourne wants to know the source as well to finally find out the truth of who he is and what made him into a killer. The film, then, becomes a chase against time and each other to find the source and see if the government can close the breach and tie off all loose ends, or if Bourne can get his revenge on those who took his life from him.In what is probably the simplest storyline of the series, with only one chase lasting the entirety of the story, it has possibly the biggest cast of characters and turning over of loyalties to expose the corruption that has been behind the full story progression. This is not a detriment at all, however, as it allows for more fights and car chases that work in full context to the plot. Admission to this film is worth it for the apartment fight, between Bourne and the CIA's second asset, alone. The chase jumping through windows in Madrid is cool on its own, but when they finally meet up, we get a ten minute or so fight that is as invigorating to watch as any scene you'll see. Also, rather than using a massive car chase as a climatic set piece like in the first two films, we instead get around three small scale road races, just as intense, but staggered enough to never bog the action down into monotony.After five years of waiting, we also find out the origin of our favorite operative with heart and feeling. By the end of the film we will find out what has been the cause of all the espionage and destruction that has taken place around him. No one could have done it better than Matt Damon. He has the physique and attitude to be believable in the action sequences, but also the range to pull off the moments of intelligence and cat and mouse correspondence with those against him. Joan Allen reprises her role with the same amount of dedication to her job, but also a bit more disenchantment for what is going on around her after how Brian Cox's character, from the first two films, took matters into his own hands. Needing a role in that mold, we are given a nice turn from David Strathairn. Like Cox, he is working at the top of the food chain and answers to no one when making a decision. With as much trying to cover up any connections to his bosses of the Blackbriar program as he is trying to do his duty to his country, you can never quite gauge what he will be capable of doing. Even the little guys do a wonderful job, like Paddy Considine as the reporter who starts the leak at the center of everything, Albert Finney as a man from Bourne's past and possibly key to his origin, and Edgar Ramirez as one of the CIA's operatives sent to take Bourne out. Ramirez is a nice addition to the role that has been successfully played by Clive Owen (Identity), Karl Urban, and Martin Csokas (Supremacy). He doesn't talk much, if at all, but he has the look and robotic efficiency down pat and hopefully will get more roles to show what he can do post a nice turn in Domino.In the end, one has to applaud Paul Greengrass for continuing to exceed expectations and bring this series to a conclusion that builds on the success of its predecessors rather than destroy them. His skill at the close-up hand-held look is astonishing and has the same kinetic energy as Tony Scott, but without quite the seizure-inducing cuts. Rather than feel like over- production, his use of hand-held enhances the environment and puts you directly into the action. Let's also credit cinematographer Oliver Wood, who shot all three Bourne films. He was able to work with both directors and work his style into a nice harmony with them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4daab53e41dc4c4ab375bbcd2b31b097", "input": "Review: I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fee13ab2dfb4eef9aba6d5de3fda4d9", "input": "Review: Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the \"young\" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a \"bath\" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4a7a3eec7394761bb4b18457b50a1c2", "input": "Review: I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e5e29f0ec224797a6c512d4e18a0d9c", "input": "Review: Hollow Point, though clumsy in places, manages to be an extremely endearing and amusing action movie.The primary entertainment value here is humor - everyone turns in clever performances that provide the film with a great deal of energy.Oh, by the way, advocates of gun safety will be horrified by the conduct of the characters in this movie... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b287e034288446c399f5445718ed44c9", "input": "Review: Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it. To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c416c1b16d4a4f9aa5cd2771a61ca259", "input": "Review: Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfa095af27f64599a968af5e773cf155", "input": "Review: I'm a Jean Harlow fan, because she had star quality. I don't think her movies are good and I don't even think that she was a good actress, but she certainly was Great in comedies. Every bit of comedy in The Girl from Missouri is very good. But this movie is perhaps more like a love story. Jean Harlow is wonderful in this one and you can forget the rest of the cast - their performances bring nothing new. It always impresses me much to think that Harlow's beautiful body was that of an ill woman. Well, in this movie she does look beautiful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-845bb269c93d4970bd4227204044a102", "input": "Review: This movie is pure guano. Mom always said if you can't say anything nice... but even Mom would say I had to do my part to warn others of this movie.I can guarantee this is the film that Geoffrey Rush wishes would just go away. I would hope that Greg Kinnear fired his agent..from a cannon for giving him the script. After this Ben Stiller is probably praying for someone to pitch \"There's Still Something About Mary.\" I have always been a fan of Wes Studi's, thank whatever you hold holy that he wore a mask through the film so maybe people won't identify the film with him.It starts of promisingly with a stylistic spoof of the cinematography of the Batman films and then just loses something...like a coherent plot and half decent effects.The jokes are telegraphed an hour before the punchline comes, and even then they fall flat. If you want to see an effective spoof of the comic book world see \"Chasing Amy\".RUN! DON'T WALK AWAY FROM \"MYSTERY MEN\"! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9336b588718346298c769f17971f9b88", "input": "Review: Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate \"And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!\" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in \"The Story of Jacob and Joseph\" and \"The Story of David\". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8eedda4588f44feb809bd718be2ef9fb", "input": "Review: \"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat\" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell(\"The Evil Dead\",\"Intruder\")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like \"Cannibal Holocaust\" or \"Last House on the Left\".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-265e8c3e84a54a9ebbe0c349b708049d", "input": "Review: Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a97364c96d4d48c486a207f9d24bf973", "input": "Review: I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66b95d335f9349dc8c7f1d0cea35568f", "input": "Review: When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3254d3165c7848eea0331833449951ac", "input": "Review: First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning… The film's title \"Presque rien\" (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him… \"Non… enfin, oui… une fois, mais ce n'était rien\" (No… well, yes… once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu – he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves – but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it… Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2b0031361b948a093919cad3b2793e2", "input": "Review: A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef82e7ea80944bf5907e2e25f5b48254", "input": "Review: I liked the initial premise to this film which is what led me to hunt it out but the problem I quickly found is that one pretty much knows what's going to happen within the first 20-30 minutes ( the doubles will come from behind the mirror and take over everybody).There is no real twist (which is fine) , but the final reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense either (how can she be racked with uncertainty and fear for the whole film, if she's an evil id from beyond the mirror?).Admittedly the scenes 'beyond the mirror' were chilling when they first appeared and the blonde's murder is also effectively creepy, but ultimately alas this seems to be a film in search of a story or a more engaging script, piling atmosphere upon atmosphere and over the top scary sound design for 80-90 minutes does not really cut it, in fact it gets quite dull. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e90e8b3edecd4d059c2e93463345e894", "input": "Review: Very sweet pilot. The show reeks of Tim Burton's better films...Edward Sissorhands, Big Fish, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. The cinematography, the narration, the music, the external sets all scream Tim Burton. There has to be a connection, or a STRONG influence, I just haven't researched enough to know where it is.As I've seen in the forums, yes Anna Friel is playing a poor man's Zooey Deschanel. Every time I see her on the screen I see Zooey. Don't get me wrong, Anna Friel does a great job. Her character is very sweet and lovable and you easily get attached to her. It's more of a distraction that I keep thinking \"Why didn't they get Zooey Deschanel\".Lee Pace does a great job too. I kept trying to remember where I knew him from and just looked it up. Wonderfalls!!! Great, short lived series from 2004. If you enjoy Pushing Daisies you MUST go rent Wonderfalls, which is another Brian Fuller creation….hmmmm Loved seeing Swoosie Kurtz (World According to Garp) and Ellen Greene (Little Shop of Horrors) again. Two underrated character actresses that never fail to bring it with their performances. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-926a54cc0c414e41b18c621725557d7b", "input": "Review: Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c93b46713f344088f5bd984724c4feb", "input": "Review: Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved \"innocent\" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2c9f6004e9e4d3e8b5ab6912c70240b", "input": "Review: I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say \"raccoon eyes?\"I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c86747c9ec54bb9b5910d3790f8588d", "input": "Review: This film ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40f8a6044e374cb796f4a66698375359", "input": "Review: Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6be1452c2324210b61bb259a55a6a00", "input": "Review: I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9909be165c8047e3b04745a7a7dd7962", "input": "Review: After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbbf06feeeb44cea9ed556b708071438", "input": "Review: After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage playIn stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the sameThe first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerdThe film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fakeEven his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put offSome emotions do touch you but most are too over the topRajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okayAmongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebfafafa99f84293b70796bc7937e8d1", "input": "Review: It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good \"B\" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-278314f96f0d4f399844c9ee947725e9", "input": "Review: **** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile momentsBOMB = Not of a viewable quality- Kalifornia = ***- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless \"white trash\" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving \"KALIFORNIA\" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fca33d41c34749db99597ef57147411a", "input": "Review: Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f337ab0df944742a4eaebe83a1fdd26", "input": "Review: Anyone who doesn't think Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey is one of the greatest movies of all time needs their head checked. It somehow manages to be both completely inane and no-brainer, but also terrifying knowing and clever at the same time. One of those rare films that actually improves upon it predecessor, Bogus Journey can be enjoyed again and again. Notable highlights include the duel with Death and the ending, which is highly \"emotional\". Keanu wants to forget all that Matrix rubbish and get down to doing what he does best, Ted Theodore Logan in Bill and Ted: The Return. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4381b08d82f8499885920cd57f152321", "input": "Review: This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e73b45cdd6a44388c25129443d41188", "input": "Review: Spoilers.First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead – I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought – if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1a97d334c33471f84f2c8e0b9606c41", "input": "Review: may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, \"bad\" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood \"southern\" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b2e0e8390ba493e8431cd89844ddd81", "input": "Review: When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the \"message\" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the \"I am a good carrying person\" smile, the concerned look and the \"victory is ours\" body posture, while the bad guys have the \"I'm a bad one\" frowning and the \"you caught me\" look, followed by the \"I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society\" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e056a933d3f24bfcb608726cdd98e65b", "input": "Review: For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a352c96aaff74437ac44ee7e4bd9f955", "input": "Review: Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b96a83ad5cf54540aaa4c0ce9dcc2ca5", "input": "Review: This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike \"Yes\", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.But the film's title is \"Ghosts\", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them… Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Françoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Françoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. \"Marie is dead,\" concludes Françoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a \"niña\", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24542bfd35644abdaf9dad9f67c687e9", "input": "Review: THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie. I say \"supposedly\" because the title of the movie does not have the \"V\" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).The plot is simple – a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here. Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called \"so bad, they're good\" movies. However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a \"so bad it's good\" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill. The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget. But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them. But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).The characters in this movie are not likable at all. Most of the band members are aggressive foul-mouthed morons or just downright weird. No one really cares about what happens to them, and even their supposed friends forget about them when they've been dispatched. The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!). He spouts some really funny lines for no apparent reason. But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation. Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking. Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation. As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all. There are plenty of over-the-top outbursts (mainly from the male characters) and one nearly results in a full-blown fight. In fact, the format could be said to go as follows: characters walk around--murder takes place--characters walk around--murder takes place. You get the idea.The dialogue is terrible and it seems that few lines are spoken without the f-word being used. Perhaps this was meant to be funny, but it just comes off as sad. And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all. The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger. A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons. They make little attempt to get out of the factory or find a weapon with which to protect themselves. And much of the time, they don't even pretend to be scared.In the same vein as DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, the killer is not seen at the time the murders are being committed (with the exception of the final murder when the killer's identity is revealed). A random weapon appears out of nowhere to kill the victim in question. There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time. In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock. The extras look uncomfortable dancing to it. The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.Don't misunderstand the points made in this review. This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH). But, it seems that THE CHOKE tried too hard to fit into one of those categories without fitting into either. And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes. But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie. And fans of the classics such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH should do everything in their power to avoid it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d230942b1174c84bdd68ed803f993f1", "input": "Review: This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c52f2ea1232d4668b0e017cf070672d2", "input": "Review: Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4532374bf439416a8aa195a886b803fa", "input": "Review: Why is this movie not in the 250 best? This movie looks still astoundingly fresh 56 years after its production but it could only have been made at the aftermath of W.W.II because of the perception of the nearness of death. People were more aware that life could be stopped at one unexpected moment. And what after life? I liked the scene at the end with the judgment and all people of all nations gathered. The phlegmatic judge (Abraham Sofaer-a typical British judge-), Doctor Reeves (Roger Livesey) defending Peter Carter (David Niven) and also June (Kim Hunter) against the American prosecutor Abraham Farlan (Raymond Massey I -there is a reason why it is an American-). It is all so imaginative! Michael Powell wrote, directed and produced this astonishing movie which is a real \"tour-de-force\". The message of the movie is clear: in the universe the law is the most important but on earth nothing goes beyond the love between humans. The way in which this beautiful story is told is far more interesting than any Hollywood-movie could ever make. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-325efd4429234c2ab166a5c59378c72e", "input": "Review: \"Girlfight\" is much more of a coming-of-age-story than it is a fight flick. And what a relief to have one in an urban school, with naturalistic, realistic Latinos and believable use of Brooklyn project settings. It made me realize that virtually all Hollywood high school movies are set in luxurious suburbia or small towns. (Even the somewhat comparable \"Love and Basketball\" which focused on teen African-Americans was set in suburbia.) While these kids share some of the same peer problems, those issues shrink compared to the other struggles of these kids, where high school graduation could be the major accomplishment of their lives.The feminist element here is riveting in its originality, as you hold your breath to see if she can have a relationship--and a victory-- on her terms. A lots of audience sympathy goes to the guy who is challenged to rise to a gender-bending-expectations situation.The movie does drag a bit here and there, but this is no cheap thrills \"Rocky\" fight movie, as the practices and fights have complex outcomes, and all the relationships--especially with fathers and father-figures-- take more center stage than the center ring. There were lots of interesting music credits listed at the end, but I hadn't really noticed the songs.(originally written 10/7/2000) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e5e8de1b83241d7b54929f7853c659c", "input": "Review: Verry classic plot but a verry fun horror movie for home movie party Really gore in the second part This movie proves that you can make something fun with a small budget. I hope that the director will make another one Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbb9b130dce84fbe88240ba97533358b", "input": "Review: This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a35fafc29674fa1a5c2a822f04ef573", "input": "Review: My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c303e37d03e445ef9ac91935a8fa035d", "input": "Review: An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, \"Soul Survivors\" is the latest entry in the \"who's dead and who's alive\" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5f08a8da2ef4306ba39a6db6300cb54", "input": "Review: By rights, there should never have been a \"First Blood Part II\". The original script for \"First Blood\" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.The official title of this film was \"Rambo: First Blood Part II\", but it is more commonly known simply as \"Rambo\". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in \"First Blood\", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your \"trivia\" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.The tone of this film is very different from the first. In \"First Blood\" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In \"Rambo\" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made \"The Cassandra Crossing\", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and \"Rambo\" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.\"First Blood\" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. \"Rambo\", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong! By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to \"Rambo\", \"The Green Berets\" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce4e5f4ccb4b4ea1b75afc50e28fee17", "input": "Review: Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable \"whipping\". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, \"Whipped\" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think \"The Man Show\" is Emmy material. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-24ed15e124cd491e81635d7bb0211bef", "input": "Review: To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. \"Better\" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07e5473396294fd381cc73127ae7c651", "input": "Review: This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-761c50e78f45494f83d6df96207e97ad", "input": "Review: Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33eade7ad73c4ff6b4a6abf58b4cd8b2", "input": "Review: I dislike this movie a lot. If you've read the Puzo's books, or at least have watched very closely the two first movies (specially the first one), you're going to agree with me.Compared with the Corleone's saga presented by Puzo's novel, the script of this film is, sometimes, even ridiculous. The characters and the relationships among them are distorted. The story ends up reaching nowhere, although it appears to go to some direction during the movie.It is understandable that different times should be expected for the Corleone's saga in the 90's, and that we would not gonna find things the way they were before. But, in the other hand, I don't know why they had to copy some dialogues from the other movies, in contexts when they didn't fit. Why this? It sounds like those poorly made sequels that just try to copy the original film's qualities.What will never be understandable is the fact that Mario Puzo, Coppola and Al Pacino joined together to make this. A man who directed pieces like Apocalypse Now and Godfather has to be forgiven for almost anything he does in cinema until he dies. So does Al Pacino, for being the actor he is. But Mario Puzo shouldn't have written this. How come? He damaged all his previous work. What a shame, my friend. The Puzo's novel \"The Last Don\" is a 90's story about the mob, and it is great. We can never tell the same about the plot for the Godfather III. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cf0f1a90f4f4446b967b2b3f24329e0", "input": "Review: (Only minor spoilers except as noted).I've enjoyed a lot of Spanish cinema recently; both the actual Spanish cinema of people like Almodovar, and the Latin American cinema of directors like del Toro, whose superb \"Devil's Backbone\", set in Civil War Spain, was the finest horror film of the last decade. It's no surprise, then, that this film is both well-made, well-acted, and manages to sustain that distinctively different Spanish atmosphere. But it's also as nasty and pointless a film as one could hope not to have to see.What actually is the purpose of all this? We have no real idea what caused the creepy central character to embark on his killing spree, despite the fact that large amounts of narrative voice-over are drawn directly from his own narcissistic journal. In a routinely unpleasant opening sequence, set more than a decade earlier, we see the central character killing his girlfriend in a rage of jealousy and control-freakery (\"…if I can't have you nobody can….\"). Oddly enough, that is perhaps one of the best sequences in the film, but it has no discernible relation to his subsequent killing spree, which appears completely different in both motivation and execution. What happened to him in jail to cause this change? We have no idea, though we do later discover, as an absurd sort of afterthought, that he obtained a law degree while imprisoned.In Britain, in several of our notorious \"serial killer\" or \"sex killer\" cases, the terrible question arises; what about the wife? Did she know, or suspect what was going on? This is a question that this film could have asked, and indeed the wife does begin to emerge as one of the more intriguing characters. But banally, the answer to the question is quite clearly: \"No, she didn't\". Even when a dramatic opportunity like this is presented on a plate, the film still manages to bungle it. All we actually get, sketched perfunctorily out at the end, is her slightly amoral preparedness to cash in on the proceeds after the event. Compare this to the awful revelatory moment in Ten Rillington Place, where Christie's wife says \"you know what I mean….\" thereby sealing her own fate and allowing us an appalled glimpse into unimaginable chasms of suppressed knowledge and horror.(Major spoiler in this paragraph). In the meantime, we are supposed to believe that the killer himself is a criminal mastermind who comprehensively outwits the police, thereby securing the briefest of incarcerations in a mental hospital before being released so that he can kill again. How exactly did he achieve this? The plot gets extremely sketchy at this point; something to do with deliberately leaving certain clues for the police; but how this all works or why, or how the subsequent court case actually proceeds, remains a mystery.I actually don't believe serial killers are like this. The Silence of the Lambs may be comic book stuff, but – Lecter aside – it gets its serial killers right. They are deeply disturbed, deeply dysfunctional, deeply inadequate people; not the creepily charming mastermind presented here (closely related to the equally implausible suave killer of The Last Horror Movie, or indeed even Man Bites Dog, though it appears not to have been noticed that that was a satire).This film has little suspense, and bungles what little intrigue the plot might have generated. It has nothing useful to say about the motivations of serial killers, either generally, or in the specific cultural milieu of Spain. This is nothing more than a poorly plotted excuse to show some pretty misogynistic violence to women. And oddly, what makes that violence even more repulsive is a certain prissy failure of nerve even in how it is presented. The soft core character of what is actually shown just makes it seem even more repellently titillatory. Just one explicit shot, properly timed, would have been infinitely more shocking, and would have rendered all the rest completely unnecessary, freeing up more film time to flesh out the gaping holes in plot and characterisation. Instead we just get endless shots of young women vulnerably spreadeagled on a table in their pretty but slightly revealing underwear. Very, very creepy. I'm sorry to be rude; I love horror films, and can tolerate even the most extreme, to the extent even of worrying my partner. But I think anyone who finds this film good, or interesting, even I'd find myself edging away from. The purpose of a horror film is to scare you; this is just lascivious.It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth indeed. I have to give this film more than one star just because it's competently executed, but morally it deserves none at all and should never have been made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f886f19945f40f7845a02b97b282424", "input": "Review: This is an early film \"Pilot\" for the hit Canadian tv show Trailer Park Boys. It was played to executives at a few networks before Showcase decided to sign them up for a tv series. Great acting and a very funny cast make this one of the best cult comedy films. The movie plot is that these two small time criminals go around \"exterminating\" peoples pets for money. If you have a dog next door whos barking all night these are the guys you go to! But they get into trouble when they come across a job too big for them to deal with and end up in a shootout. Watch this movie if you want to understand the beginning of the tv series. I highly recommend it!Rated R for swearing, violence, and drug use.Its not too offensive either (they dont actually show killing animals) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f208c9c95a0d4d3d959db449ee718de6", "input": "Review: Aileen Gonsalves, my girlfriend, is in this film playing a secretary at the main character's bank. She has a lovely scene with Roshan Seth in a restaurant. There's more information on her website at >Having stated my personal interest in the film, I have to say that I think it is a beautiful movie - moving, funny and beautifully filmed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9162cc475ed447b0b50429d96ea48c4d", "input": "Review: This, like Murder She Wrote, is one of those shows, that after a stressful day at school, I sit down in front of the TV, and watch. Why? Because I genuinely enjoy it, and it's a shame it's not on the air anymore. Dick Van Dyke is amazing as Dr Mark Sloan, a doctor-turned-detective, who with his son, solves murders. He is joined by a largely unknown but very competent supporting cast, namely his real-life son, Barry Van Dyke. Victoria Rowell is also good, but I noticed that every series her hairstyle changes. i also liked Scott Baio and Charlie Schlatter, but I particularly loved Michael Tucci as Norman, and was puzzled how he suddenly disappeared. This show is so entertaining,with great guest stars, it's a bit obvious at times, like Colombo, but in every episode, there is always something to chuckle about. In conclusion, a great series, with two thumbs up and a 10/10. Bethany Cox Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0160082ab7d842fbb25b84ad278ae3c7", "input": "Review: Back to the roots with \"like it is in heaven\" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone. From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c051cfec8ab4dd5acae0da583ed8b2b", "input": "Review: I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6f4d9a115904c608fa51867f17c06c1", "input": "Review: I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--\"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended,\" \"This movie is not Shakespeare,\" etc. Guess what? Neither was \"Road Trip\"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. \"Whipped\" tries to be \"Swingers\" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word \"extremely\" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. \"Whipped\" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a00be1e365e44a948260c07be763dc04", "input": "Review: Why has this not been released? I kind of thought it must be a bit rubbish since it hasn't been. How wrong can a girl be! This film is, in a word, enthralling.You will be captivated. It holds your attention from the start and its pace never slows.The final part of the film, the \"episode\" as it were (not giving anything away, you saw that in the trailer) is also unmissable. You will chose a favourite, you will be shocked, you wont be able to go and make a cup of coffee because you need to find out what happens. The adrenalin rises and you cant not watch. Cudos to the actors, it's very believable. And it doesn't stop there, they have a final shock for you.It also makes you question reality TV and if you would watch. And how far away from this are we, really? Endemol (who make big brother) made a TV show in Holland last year offering a dying woman's kidney to patients in need of a transplant. The show was revealed at the end to be a hoax, ostensibly to raise awareness of organ donation, but are we getting too close for comfort? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7b2012fbc054741bbb5c04185c0f0d7", "input": "Review: Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is \"avant-garde\" or just \"stupid.\" Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to \"Amazing Grace\" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb8579d8161f418a9df5d78827de76e9", "input": "Review: Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d64c975424a94697996b56de20b02a10", "input": "Review: The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-10c8013e3d1646078e7b2cf1f7655f6f", "input": "Review: I found this a very entertaining small kids movie that actually is geared more for adults with a lot of jokes and humor only they would understand. A few things are inappropriate for the kiddies, but just a few. Othewise, \"The Grinch\" (Jim Carrey) cracks so many jokes you can't keep up with them all, ranging from sexual to cultural to insider-Hollywood to racial.The film is very colorful and looks great on DVD. The little girl in here, \"Cindy Lou Who\" (Taylor Momsen) is really cute and the costumes and hairdos of the little people in here are fun to view. Anthony Hopkins' voice is pleasing, too, so having his narrate this elevates the movie further. His rhymes are fun to hear.I saw this in the theater, though it was \"fair,\" but on DVD, it was far better. I've seen in three times and it got better each time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cb0e25e0af94746a525a084ec573241", "input": "Review: Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccd84c7d1fcf4cbe99e3fb4a15b6c512", "input": "Review: ****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of \"The Crater Lake Monster\" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call \"The Crater Lake Monster\" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for \"The Crater Lake Monster\". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't \"superheating\" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like \"The Crater Lake Monster\". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d711bf9ad59146038f4e3b375588ba1d", "input": "Review: Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.I was actually shouting at the telly \" they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first \", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02dee1b717cd462792f15572f19470e9", "input": "Review: A bad rip-off attempt on \"Seven\", complete with sub-second-grade acting, awful camera work, half-baked story and strong aftertaste of lame propaganda. Yeah, them \"sex offenders\", they live next door and you're gonna get raped, really.No surprises from the vice-terminatrix woman, she acts as always -- as convincingly as a piece of wood. Richard Gere keeps on sliding lower and lower -- and is about as low here as a late Steven Seagal.The singer woman with the crazy eyes is best when she's dead in bed; and even the wolf was sub-par (although she was the best performer in the movie) -- maybe they fed her before the shots, or something.Unlike \"Seven\", which had a (made up, but interesting) story, to which one could relate more or less regardless of the country, this movie seems to focus on a US-only obsession. If one doesn't care much about \"sex offenders\" -- and the statistics are that lack of exercise and bad diet cause more pain, suffering and death -- there is little reason to see it, or to be afraid.There are some body part fetishes and some snuff, but the gore is less then mediocre, and fails both as artistic device (because it is pointless) and as gore, because it is not gory enough.Don't waste time on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a15470977f624565b167fe836e0cbdba", "input": "Review: I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef21f53e9dc340cdbb8e6267e4bfb994", "input": "Review: This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc20079ad75f48f7b67c762a73c15172", "input": "Review: Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in \"The Maddening\" or any of the \"Look Who's Talking\" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a \"Scooby Doo\" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-030a03d979dd440f9f1b4aa7e6831354", "input": "Review: \"Footlight Parade\" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. \"42nd Street\" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, \"Yankee Doodle Dandy\". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.7 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34eb11021a6943948ce5beb62ef83526", "input": "Review: We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4642615449046eba94c23753f971661", "input": "Review: This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f21092fbbe7b4818b5e1ee23a9d284c2", "input": "Review: I watched this movie on the grounds that Amber Benson rocks and Nick Stahl is generally pretty cool - I figured that any film featuring two actors I like and respect couldn't be all bad. And in that sense, I was right - considering the cringe-making dialogue they were given, both of them perform reasonably well. Not well enough to stop the movie from sucking, you understand, but well enough that I was able to make it through the 75-odd minutes of movie (and that's the main sign of an awful film: when, at 40 minutes through, you're already praying for it to be over).It's hard to know where to start with the problems in \"Taboo\". The dialogue, as mentioned, is appalling; wooden and completely unnatural. January Jones' acting is unbelievably bad, and since she's the character we spend most of our time following around the house, this is an unforgivable flaw. The plot manages to be so convoluted that it makes no sense while simultaneously being so clichéd as to be completely predictable (literally, not one of the major 'twists' in this film would surprise anyone but a toddler). A few interesting shots aside, the director tries far too hard with far too little success, awkward tracking shots and jittery camera-work distracting from what little element of story there is.Three of this movie's stars are awarded for the fact that it contains Amber Benson, and the last is tossed in on the grounds that one of the jokes made me snigger a little bit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b41fdf4b03a64c119bcab76c6170f552", "input": "Review: A great idea: 11 stories about 11 September. 11 directors from different countries with different results. Ken Loach talking about an immigrant (as usual) is just brilliant (as usual). The Frenchman does a very good job also, while the Burkina Faso film was a nice surprise. However, the Israel film was a bit boring, and the Mexican guy, well, he should quit directing and work in a Mexican restaurant. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a1fcc136adf497ca431d9dbf4fa668a", "input": "Review: There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbed624a325f470a9bd595d6fcee4591", "input": "Review: There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0573ff0d18d94ac18e283ae5eb9d7d45", "input": "Review: \"Cinderella\" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.My favorite thing about \"Cinderella\" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-133d95a5f9a642a68212d23292e13f6b", "input": "Review: \"Cinderella\" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.My favorite thing about \"Cinderella\" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-df727df0918a458cb1cf0876a3d5ae9c", "input": "Review: Several posters have quoted Renoir voicing his desire to make a film showing Ingrid Bergman smiling to camera. The short answer is wouldn't we all whilst the harsh reality is that only a select few got to do so. At this stage of her career Bergman couldn't get arrested; in 1949 she left Hollywood to make a picture in Europe, fell for director Roberto Rossellini and never looked forward. After five turkeys in Italy she was probably ready to open a vein but within the year, after making this for Renoir, she was back where she belonged and with an Oscar to boot for Anastasia. This is one of three movies that Renoir made in color around this time and on balance it's better than The Golden Coach, which isn't hard, and about even with French Can Can. Renoir probably figured that with so much going for her Bergman could get away with a couple of wooden leading men and Renoir picked two doozys in Jean Marais and Mel Ferrer, solid mahogany in both cases. The plot is actually based on a real incident in French history but Renoir is content to give it a once-over-lightly and concentrate on replicating the paintings of his father in set up after set up. In its pastel colors it resembles another film of the period Les Grandes Manouvres which is no bad thing. All in all it remains a pleasant trifle showcasing a beautiful and charismatic actress. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed93f375c45b4affa7c4af8ada6dff16", "input": "Review: A great addition to anyone's collection.12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.I very much highly recommend it.10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d5cc895b9ba48a68a3df113d5d3039a", "input": "Review: This film came out 12 years years ago, and was a revelation even for people who knew something of the drag scene in New York. The textbooks on drag performance say nothing of these vogueing houses. Anthony Slide's 'Great Pretenders' says nothing. Julian Fleisher's \"The Drag Queens of New York: An Illustrated Field Guide\" with its flow chart of influence that pulls together Julian Eltinge, Minette, the Warhol queens, and the 90s club scene - and postdates the film - ignores the houses completely. Even Laurence Senelick's \"The Changing Room\" - the closest thing that we have to a definitive book on drag performance rushes quickly past the film and does not give the background information that one would have expected from it.I understand from the film itself,and various articles I found on the web that this house system goes back decades. The major film performance by a house member prior to 1990 seems to be Chrystal La Beija in \"The Queen\", 1968. The historical context is the biggest missing part of \"Paris is Burning\".The film is valuable because it focuses on a scene otherwise being ignored. It is a valuable snapshot of life in 1989. The unfortunate fact that Venus Xtravaganza was murdered during filming provides a very dramatic ending, but this is not the only film about transsexuals to include a real-life murder. As we now know, Dorian Corey had a mummified corpse in her literal closet, but this did not come out until three years later.Of historical importance, but we still need someone to do either a book or a documentary film that provides more context. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d7598f717004a298af851de32a7e990", "input": "Review: There is no doubt that Halloween is by far one of the best films ever not only in its genre but also outside.I love the films creepy atmosphere like the whole it could happen here sort of situation makes it scary to think about.Also to imagine if you were ever in this situation what would you do.This is a movie that i enjoy watching highly, especially around Halloween time.John Carpenter is a very professional directer i love a lot of his other films, but there is no doubt that his best known movie is the film Halloween.Oh and if your thinking about watching the Rob Zombie remake don't.It is pure crap and a true Halloween fan would like the 1978 John Carpenter version better.Michael Myers is one of the coolest slasher killers in any film, and is a very well known one.So by all means go see this masterpiece you will really like it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c1438ded22144aeabc0266897acbd6a", "input": "Review: That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a \"blockbuster\" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only \"horror\" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a \"drama/thriller\".But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-719f0172d0cb4ce4bdc9cf2f20bca239", "input": "Review: Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cf5674b6c464d9eb09a20dcf406c3c6", "input": "Review: Dressed to Kill understandably made a bit of a ruckus when first released in 1980: you had \"Police Girl\" in a role that was mega-erotic, as Angie Dicknson played a sexually frustrated housewife looking for good times in all the wrong museums (and there into apartment elevators), plus Nancy Allen as a call-girl, Michael Caine as Norman Bates's sophisticated New York cousin, and enough lurid imagery to last two movies of the period. Today it's slightly less incriminating by standards and such, though the unrated version has some of the most \"hot\" content of any of De Palma's films, at least in his quasi-auteur period of the 70s and early 80s, where he seemed to repeat themes over and over, ideas taken right off the film-reels of Hitchcock classics and given a tawdry uplift. It's a simple tale that one partly already saw in Sisters, and then again to an extent in Body Double, and also in Blow Out. Cutie Allen plays call-girl Liz Blake, who has to clear her name of suspicion of killing Kate (Dickinson, in full blown 'MILF' mode), after being found with a razor, the murder weapon from Dr. Elliott's office (Michael Caine, stone-cold performance most of the way).From the start, which De Palma seems to do as a way of setting up a dangerous sexual fantasy scene as a way of topping the opening scene of Carrie (which, perhaps, he does just in editing terms), we get a series of technical knock-out turns through the point of view of style itself: the tracking shots in the museum, meant to stir up more of a fascination with the process itself, of following and wanting to be followed, than any kind of tension; the chase through the subway (a precursor to Carlito's Way) is done with a precise level of suspense, meanwhile, with a slightly exploitation bit thrown in with the black gang; the character of Peter, Kate's son (Keith Gordon), who plays what is essentially a younger version of the real life De Palma as a kid (science geek, obsessed with Hitchcock and voyeurism). And it's all entertaining and entrancing as hell as something that comes close to a real synthesis of what makes De Palma's thrillers so unique while being so self-consciously untainted by a fearless attitude of film-making.On the other hand, that same self-consciousness ended up coming back to bite the director in the butt a few times in recent years, and somehow in Dressed to Kill it starts to become very erratic and disappointing as the story has to wrap itself up. As the Psycho themes come together even more apparently (man who wants a sex-change, doesn't even think he's killing as it is *she* who is doing it), there is an expository scene in the police station that makes the aforementioned Hitch film look like an astonishing psychological revelation. And the final scenes at Peter's house, also calling painfully into recollection a much more accomplished sequence in Carrie, are meant for a manipulation that even for De Palma is asking for it; the final shot especially, albeit a master's class in how to copy yourself. Yet there is a very deranged and, within itself, perfect scene at the mental hospital amid this confused denouement, where the doctor does some work on a nurse, to which all the other inmates act like animals in a zoo, and an over-head shot going up and up over the scene is one of the best shots of sexual/general perversion ever captured on film.A shame then that the film ends on such a strange and unsettling manner, where up until then it is a remarkable piece of pulp cinema, where class is all around in the technical aspects (soft lighting, intricate camera movements seemingly so simple) amid subject matter that should be found in the mix of paperbacks for 25 cents. It's no masterpiece, but I'd certainly take it over most of the director's recent thrillers any day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc6c494ed00d4f96acc05877ad7756d6", "input": "Review: While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.As for the impressions of the pilot...The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the \"feel\" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a \"generic\" Trek story with the themes of \"exploration\" and \"first step towards space\" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series. The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the \"action\". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of \"the wind\" and being on \"the sea\" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.We had the feeling more that humans were the \"freshmen\" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9e9611138a849699a7d944c52d86273", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are not permitted to attend men's sporting events, apparently to \"protect\" them from all the cursing and foul language they might hear emanating from the male fans (so since men can't restrain or behave themselves, women are forced to suffer. Go figure.). \"Offside\" tells the tale of a half dozen or so young women who, dressed like men, attempt to sneak into the high-stakes match between Iran and Bahrain that, in 2005, qualified Iran to go to the World Cup (the movie was actually filmed in large part during that game).\"Offside\" is a slice-of-life comedy that will remind you of all those great humanistic films (\"The Shop on Main Street,\" \"Loves of a Blonde,\" \"Closely Watched Trains\" etc.) that flowed out of Communist Czechoslovakia as part of the \"Prague Miracle\" in the mid 1960's. As with many of those works, \"Offside\" is more concerned with observing life than with devising any kind of elaborately contrived fictional narrative. Indeed, it is the simplicity of the setup and the naturalism of the style that make the movie so effective.Once their ruse is discovered, the girls are corralled into a small pen right outside the stadium where they can hear the raucous cheering emanating from the game inside. Stuck where they are, all they can do is plead with the security guards to let them go in, guards who are basically bumbling, good-natured lads who are compelled to do their duty as a part of their compulsory military service. Even most of the men going into the stadium don't seem particularly perturbed at the thought of these women being allowed in. Still the prohibition persists. Yet, how can one not be impressed by the very real courage and spunk displayed by these women as they go up against a system that continues to enforce such a ridiculously regressive and archaic restriction? And, yet, the purpose of these women is not to rally behind a cause or to make a \"point.\" They are simply obsessed fans with a burning desire to watch a soccer game and, like all the men in the country, cheer on their team.It's hard to tell just how much of the dialogue is scripted and how much of it is extemporaneous, but, in either case, the actors, with their marvelously expressive faces, do a magnificent job making each moment seem utterly real and convincing. Mohammad Kheir-abadi and Shayesteh Irani are notable standouts in a uniformly excellent cast. The structure of the film is also very loose and freeform, as writer/director Jafar Panahi and co-writer Shadmehr Rastin focus for a few brief moments on one or two of the characters, then move smoothly and effortlessly onto others. With this documentary-type approach, we come to feel as if we are witnessing an actual event unfolding in \"real time.\" Very often, it's quite easy for us to forget we're actually watching a movie.It was a very smart move on the part of the filmmakers to include so much good-natured humor in the film (it's what the Czech filmmakers did as well), the better to point up the utter absurdity of the situation and broaden the appeal of the film for audiences both domestic and foreign. \"Offside\" is obviously a cry for justice, but it is one that is made all the more effective by its refusal to make of its story a heavy-breathing tragedy. Instead, it realizes that nothing breaks down social barriers quite as efficiently as humor and an appeal to the audience's common humanity. And isn't that what true art is supposed to be all about? In its own quiet, understated way, \"Offside\" is one of the great, under-appreciated gems of 2007. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93120f39770c43609acb2d674a90d01c", "input": "Review: ***One Out of Ten Stars*** Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebbf5c8854ff43388eaae78d8bfe1d23", "input": "Review: Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called \"Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version\" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called \"vampires\", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! \"Pathetic\" is the only only word that I could use here.Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the \"briliant\" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying \"cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore\" !!!This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b74806c775794a55831256109a722cd0", "input": "Review: Otto Preminger's noir classic works almost as a flip-side of LAURA...while that film was glitzy and features the high fa-luting Clifton Webb, this film is a whole lot seamier. Dana Andrews is a less than good cop who accidentally kills a man only to have it potentially pinned on the father of the girl he loves. Preminger keeps things moving at a brisk clip so that lapses in logic are easily overlooked. Andrews is quite fine (a lot less wooden than he's been in the past) and the stunningly beautiful Gene Tierney is stunningly beautiful! Creepy Craig Stevens plays the unlucky victim. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS is a must see and a terrific companion-piece to Preminger's equally lurid WHIRLPOOL (also starring Tierney). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-950fa51009e04ca48176f4ec602fa336", "input": "Review: Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's \"Of Human Bondage\" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, \"I don't mind,\" a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do \"anything [he] wants,\" a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e809fc43a3dc4c489456584fa4c0de3d", "input": "Review: I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like \"The Man In The White Suit\" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.\"It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress,\" Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.One problem with \"Man In The White Suit\" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, \"White Suit\" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going \"Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop\" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in \"Doctor Zhivago\" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against \"shabbiness and dirt\", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.Supporting players make \"White Suit\" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of \"Bride Of Frankenstein\" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in \"Lawrence Of Arabia\". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy \"Whisky Galore\" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. \"Kind Hearts And Coronets\" and \"The Ladykillers\" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. \"White Suit\", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12b4ab4eb4474dbbbc07aeb0b4ba22c6", "input": "Review: Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe58e9f5945b4a399178adcf2b34a3b4", "input": "Review: Fragile Carne, just before his great period. Although it is sometimes hesitantly directed, and marred by longueurs, HOTEL DU NORD is full of the faded charm and beauty typical of French films of the late 1930s, as well as a relative lightness of touch unusual with this director. All of his great virtues are here: the cramped interiors broken up by gliding, complex, delicious camera movements; a melancholy deployment of light and shade; remarkable, wistful sets by Alexander Trauner, which are so evocative that they, as the title suggests, take on a shaping personality of their own; the quietly mournful music of Maurice Jaubert; a seemingly casual plot about romance, tragedy and fatalism that casts a noose over its characters; extraordinary performances by some of the greatest players of all time, in this case Louis Jouvet and Arletty.In fact, the film's biggest failing, and I find myself astonished (as someone who usually, didactically, minimises its importance) to admit it, is its script. It has plenty of wit and poignancy, but without the poetry and irony regular Carne collaborator Jacques Prevert brought to their best films, it cannot avoid slipping into cliche (even if it is only cliche in hindsight).Ostensibly set in the boarding house, the film sets up its opening idea of community with two interconnecting tales of doomed love, and emotional, metaphysical and actual isolation The doomed love scenario is the one that works least well. Annabella is very beautiful, but not very good at doing tragic, while Aumont's callowness, brilliantly appropriate though it may be, by its nature obtrudes any real, felt, romance. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to sympathise with a couple, so young, so attractive, who, after only a few months, are so racked with despair that they have to shoot each other. Their high-flown lines are rather embarrassing too. Of course, this affair is not meant to be plausible - they are symbolic of youth, hope and possibility being crushed in France, or maybe France itself, despairing, resigned, waiting for death. For symbols to be truly powerful, they must convince on a narrative level, which, I feel, they don't quite here.What saves this plot is its connection with the story of M. Edmond, a character linked to the great tradition of French gangsters. Although we only learn it gradually, he is a killer in hiding, living off the prostitute played by Arletty, having dobbed in his accomplices. In his previous 'role' - and the theatricality of his position is crucial - he had one set of traits; in hiding he has assumed their complete opposite. Living a rather aimless life, he is profoundly shaken by the lovers' pact, and becomes fatalistic, realising the folly of trying to cheat death.In this way - the admission that one is less a person than a collection of signs, and that death is an unavoidable reality the most powerful masculinity must succumb to - Edmond is like a romantic prototype of Melville's clinical killers. With one exception - he gives briefly into hope, a delusion which only strenghtens - if that's not too much of an unbearable irony - his fatal resolve.All this could have been trite if it wasn't for the truly amazing performance of Louis Jouvet. I had studied his theatrical work at college, but this was my first taste of his screen talents, and he reveals himself to be worthy of the greats - Grant, Mastroianni, Clift, Mason, Mitchum, Cotten - giving a quiet nobility to a role which is more of a conception (he, needless to say, is allegorical too) than an actual person. Edmond begins the film a minor supporting character, but emerges as a tragic hero of some force. Like all those major actors, Jouvet's brilliance lies in what he conceals.On a formal level, what amazes is Carne's grasping, ten years before its flourishing, of the techniques of the great Hollywood melodramas of Sirk, Ophuls, Ray and Minnelli. Although his theatricality lacks the fluidity and clear-eyed beauty of Sierck's contemporary German melodramas (check out the masterpieces ZU NEUEN UFERN and LA HABENERA), Carne's style truly fits his theme - that of entrapment, paralysis, resignation.The film's principle motif is that of water - the credits float and dissolve, the hotel stands by a waterway - but instead of Renoir's open river of possibility, we have a canal, stagnant and manmade, going nowhere. The film begins as it ends, and the setting never changes, except for one brief interlude from which both escapees are doomed to return. Characters can only escape through death - their entrapment is emphasised by the narrow rooms they occupy, the walls and frames that hold them captive, the windows that look out on an escape they can never achieve. Any hope at the end, therefore, is profoundly, if romantically, compromised. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b690caf452c2490c9fa111ea5bf06e00", "input": "Review: What we have here is a damn good little nineties thriller that, while perhaps lacking in substance, still provides great entertainment throughout it's running time and overall does everything you could possibly want a film of this nature to do. I saw this film principally because it was directed by John Dahl - a highly underrated director behind great thrillers such as The Last Seduction, Rounders and Roadkill. I figured that if this film was up to standard of what I've already seen from the director, it would be well worth watching - and Red Rock West is certainly a film that Dahl can be proud of. The plot focuses on the overly moral Michael; a man travelling across America looking for work. He ends up finding it one day when he stumbles upon a bar in Red Rock County - only catch is that the job is to murder a man's wife. He's been mistaken for a killer named Lyle, but instead of doing the job; he plays both sides against each other and eventually plans to make a getaway. However, his attempts to escape are unsuccessful and he finds himself in a bad situation when the real Lyle turns up...John Dahl appears to enjoy setting thrillers on the road; he did it three years earlier with Kill Me Again, and again almost a decade on from this film with Roadkill. It's not hard to see why Dahl chooses this sort of location, as it provides a fabulous atmosphere for a thriller the likes of this one. Dahl also provides his film with a 'film noir' like atmosphere, as the plot mainly focuses on the central character and the word he is plunged into is full of dark and mysterious characters. The acting is largely very good, with Nicholas Cage doing an excellent job in the lead role, and getting A-class support from Lara Flynn Boyle, J.T. Walsh and, of course, Dennis Hopper; who once again commands the screen with his over the top performance. It has to be said that the second half of the film isn't as gripping as the first, but Red Rock West certainly is never boring and the way that Dahl orchestrates the grand finale is excellent in that all the central characters get to be a part of it. Overall, Red Rock West is a film that you're unlikely to regret watching. It's thrilling throughout, and you can't ask for much more than that! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66b8030ab3f64278b8c2f49e36715139", "input": "Review: *Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, \"Werewolf.\" I have never seen anything like that in a film.The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f7e9b4cc861439dbeac9fd28c726e24", "input": "Review: \"Pandora's Clock\" is a gripping suspense/thriller that's a cross between a virus movie and a disaster film. This movie, which aired in two parts on NBC in its debut showing in 1996, is about an airplane flight that becomes infected with a virus when one of the passengers just happens to be carrying this disease. The U.S. Government debates on whether the plane should be destroyed or not, while the pilot (Richard Dean Anderson) and a virus expert (Daphne Zuniga) try to figure something out to avoid disaster. I'm not really a big fan of TV movies and miniseries, but I liked \"Pandora's Clock\". It's one heck of a thrill ride. Jane Leeves (TV's \"Frasier\"), Robert Loggia, and Edward Herrmann (as the President) also star.*** (out of four) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d858381956c74ea181c8e29a8747d9be", "input": "Review: The name Uwe Boll is automatically linked to bad horror/cult cinema and every new movie he releases – which is about two, three per year – immediately always receives negative ratings and harsh criticism. You're actually almost tempted to think this is just a contemporary hype. You know, like it's popular to hate Uwe Boll whether you liked his movies or not. Let me just assure you that this is NOT the case. Uwe Boll is a terrible writer/director and quite frankly a menace to the entire film-making industry. \"Seed\" is another most unfortunate of proof that. In here, Boll tries so desperately hard to come across as controversial and shocking that he overlooks numerous other elements that any movie essentially needs to exist, like a plot, a narrative structure, character development, tension building… \"Seed\" is a hideous movie, full of gratuitous filth and incompetent padding footage. I once read that \"Seed\" was Uwe Boll's interpretation of the nowadays popular horror trend of Torture Porn flicks, but that's not even close. The film inarguably does borrow some influences from \"Saw\" and \"Hostel\", but basically it's just another umpteenth dull slasher with an indestructible killer and video game violence. The first 45 minutes of \"Seed\" are beyond boring and actually just confirm all the obvious things you already knew were going to happen. For you see, Boll was stupid enough to begin his film with a (hyper- fast) scrolling text explaining there's a federal US law claiming that death row prisoners have to be set free if three attempts to electrocute them fail. So you know this will happen later on, but still the first three quarters are wasted on catching a serial killer and bringing him to the electric chair. Seed is a mute serial killer who supposedly slaughtered 666 victims (exaggerate much?) who wears a bag over his head. He watches real-life animal cruelty footage (and thus WE watch real-life animal cruelty footage; thanks for that Mr. Boll) and videotapes people as the slowly decompose in their cellar (including a crying baby which is really sick and twisted). When he's finally captured, during the most amateurish and implausible police manhunt ever filmed, and put on death row, the film even becomes more retarded. After being buried alive because the electric chair couldn't fry him, Max Seed crawls back to the surface and goes on a brand new killing spree; this time mainly focusing on the people who arrested and executed him. The senseless plot twists and complete lack of story depth of this movie go way past being just bad; they're downright infuriating and insulting the intelligence level of the average horror movie fanatic. Multiple twists and sub plot in \"Seed\" are simply impossible to accept by the reasonable functioning human mind because they're just too dumb! Nobody believes that cops and prison staff members will just bury a mass murderer alive without shooting a few bullets through his head first. Nobody will accept that a fugitive convict cannot be found for another six months even though he went straight back to the exact same hideout place where they first caught him! \"Seed\" is full of retarded little things like these and the movie gets dumber with each minute that passes. Personally, I refuse to accept that the cast & crew members didn't notice this as well. It really makes you think that Uwe Boll simply neglects all advice and criticism, and just stubbornly shoots his movies the way he wants to. I imagine his yelling stuff like \"shut up and do as you are told\" to his actors whenever they remark that the scene they're shooting doesn't make a lick of sense. Just for the fun of upsetting people, there's a gigantically overlong sequence where Max Seed smashes an elderly lady to death with a hammer whilst she's tied up to a chair in the middle of her own living room. Instead of shocking, as Boll intended it to be, this sequence masterfully epitomizes how pathetic and wannabe controversial the whole film in fact is. \"Seed\" is horrendous, it's disgusting, it's pitiable, it's … Boll. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20afea5b9efc4a888c1828f8bf0f4494", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aeda084afff4ef4bbba4cd37a7188c2", "input": "Review: This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say \"horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)\"? Don't get me started with the \"dead child\". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.< Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5641f6dca6024f95932757e40e6f2fb6", "input": "Review: Although this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0b3c810554c4d69b3be31e226d52893", "input": "Review: I can't understand why they decided to release this film to introduce the American audience to the dynamo that is Jet Li. Fist of Legend would have been a much better choice. Anyway, Black Mask isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great either. The final fight sequence is well staged by Yuen Woo Ping who went on to coordinate The Matrix. But the English release suffers from rough editing and dubbing. (I'm begging the Hollywood studios to release these films uncut with subtitles.)Jet Li shows his characteristic charisma in the title role and Francoise Yip has a cool but brief role as the female 701.Black Mask has a strange goth style that adds some interest but it is overloaded with gun battles and explosions. More focus on Li's fantastic physical skills were in order. Black Mask is a decent film but do yourself a favor and pick up Fist of Legend if you want to see a tremendous film that really shows Li's skills. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-147155d6dec54d47b7db8f117318b6f8", "input": "Review: A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bd02793cf294053a4e23e21e4e20c54", "input": "Review: I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of \"riding giants,\" but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is \"Never surf/dive/swim by yourself.\" He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left. In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world. This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed8f92792b154ae3a5912eb6c0a8a039", "input": "Review: As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c832678d3acd4ff985102eb761f93132", "input": "Review: For starters and for the record, the term \"Necromancy\" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. \"Necromancy\" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like \"Earth vs. the Spider\", \"King Dinosaur\" and \"Food of the Gods\") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and \"owner\" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody \"own\" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of \"Rosemary's Baby\" – one of the alternate titles even is \"Rosemary's Disciples\" – but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? \"Necromancy\" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance – undoubtedly the low point of his career – is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-abc76e09b97746adb6ec27e3fd8dca28", "input": "Review: What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.A waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-faa555734e444952b0a3c44e9db75aea", "input": "Review: Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a \"romance\" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so \"fake\" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecce90b5e2f24f21b987fddce47116a0", "input": "Review: The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-639ca240944b4e05923a3e7b5556e7f5", "input": "Review: There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political \"thriller\" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed \"edginess\" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2ff2a1923cb442bb97b291e9bf687bb", "input": "Review: You know all those letters to \"Father Christmas\" and \"Jesus\" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is \"Dead Letter Office\". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.\"Dead Letter Office\" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film \"Committed\" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.Despite that, \"Dead Letter Office\" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-97dc001c10ee457599d5c5599c296541", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on \"true\" stories because they usually distort the \"true\" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their \"nice and perfect\" persona looked difficult to keep up.This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec921bebca2e41f48758b140c417616a", "input": "Review: Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on \"It's a wonderful life\". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b6a3d35fbbf4d6091db80de40c88a78", "input": "Review: One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the \"U.S. backed, Latin American coup\", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage! The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of \"American politics\". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f7666480c084b1d86b8beca0ec28811", "input": "Review: Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a08173b67d904ad3844a0680c32658f4", "input": "Review: Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through \"zombification\". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the \"zombies revolted\", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I \"entertained\" myself throughout most of the movie.I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65c1d310d1d14c57b9a16f2ca4f7cfde", "input": "Review: This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the \"family business\" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!We're treated to a unique story in \"Panic,\" and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e48fb1fb507489a9460f1ec2523a397", "input": "Review: This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ba8228dba384056b1c36d3018a8be06", "input": "Review: - After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b46a80b66d34921814542a30e736e01", "input": "Review: Almost the entire film takes place in a public bathhouse in China. There are no fancy sets, explosion or glamorous people--only fine writing, acting and direction (Hollywood, take note!).An estranged son returns home when he believes his father is dying. He is surprised to see that Dad looks fine and is going about running the family business as usual. In fact, he notices that his father and his retarded brother have really forged a close and caring relationship and it soon becomes obvious that he is out of the loop! Dad is very traditional and this visiting son is from the big city and doesn't really see the value of the old bathhouse. How their relationship changes and where the plot goes from there is exceptional and believable.I was happy to see that not every Chinese movie is an action picture (such as those starring Jet Li or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), as I don't particularly care for these frenetic films. The Shower as well as Springtime In A Small Town are two wonderful examples of good Chinese films about PEOPLE! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-17661478e97e4538ac39693f2b9a5f1c", "input": "Review: It's hard for me to criticize anything that Mitzi Kapture does. She just radiates beauty and grace on the screen and is a phenomenal actress. That notwithstanding, yes, the plot was predictable. I think perhaps if Jill HAD slept with Richard then it may have made him a little crazier than he already was, which would have added more to the suspense. It would have also been nice to see Jill and her husband find out about Richard's little problem with his ex-wife, maybe a bit more back story. I was a little disappointed with the ending of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more closure with Zack's death and possibly closure with her husband. I do have to say though, I will never be able to look at a flare gun and not picture her standing there. It was a very fitting end for Richard. Of course, Mitzi ROCKED! I am so looking forward to her future projects. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4fba150681549b39327631e05a97ccd", "input": "Review: I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3edb3c7cbfac48cfbef589e5b0254999", "input": "Review: A first time director (Bromell) has assembled a small but powerful cast to look at the world of a middle aged, middle class, depressed hit-man and his struggle with his relationship with his father. This film in less than 90 minutes presents an incredibly interesting contrast in human nature. David Dorfman as the 6 year old son of William H. Macy is the most refreshing little actor I've seen in awhile. Macy is brilliant in a part that almost seems written for him as a self tortured sole struggling to break the reins of his father and his business. It's always great to see Donald Sutherland and here he's wonderful as the callous father of Macy. The films alternate audio track is well worth it to hear the director explain how he picked the cast, locations, and filmed the movie. The basic dolby 2 channel sound is adequate for this film and well recorded. The cinematography creates the mood along with a very subtle musical background. Any film buff or observer of human nature will enjoy this one especially if he's a fan of contradiction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cde123c946f3428eaefc390de17f6ddb", "input": "Review: Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1906d7d9a19b4bbb91e25c5368239f5a", "input": "Review: Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6320226823148699e1e1f5518920aef", "input": "Review: If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay. Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the \"WORST performance and any role till date\" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c733871a6a214107ab5d065d86be3195", "input": "Review: Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel \"Ye Shall Know Them\" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the \"missing link\" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe \"the Tropi\" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly \"human\" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3067a998bee24b53bc182cb600719829", "input": "Review: For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his \"lesser\" films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!! The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d70d4be1af074968bae2b1a411b2685e", "input": "Review: First let me say that I am not a Dukes fan, but after this movie the series looked like Law and Order. The worst thing was the casting of Roscoe and Boss Hogg. Burt Reynolds is not Boss Hogg, and even worse was M.C. Gainey as Roscoe, If they ever watched the show Roscoe was not a hard ass cop. He was more a Barney Fife than the role he played in this movie.The movie is loaded with the usual errors, cars getting torn up, and continues like nothing happened. The worst example of this is when the the General gets together with Billy Prickett, and the General is ran into a dirt hill obviously slowing to a near stop, but goes on to win the race. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa1579c27a02486fb8da446ed3d88849", "input": "Review: This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims \"f**king foreigners\"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-546c303e29a14583a6302706d6e75908", "input": "Review: One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-393ef2b4381140499e37ec23e3bf8339", "input": "Review: I've seen this movie, when I was traveling in Brazil. I found it difficult to really understand Brazilian culture and society, because it has so many regional and class differences. To see this movie in Sao Paulo itself was a revelation. It shows something of the everyday life of many Brazilians. On the other side, it is sometimes a little bit over-dramatized. And that's the only negative comment I have on this film. It's sometimes too much, too much sex, too many murders and too much cynicism for one film. The director could film some things a bit more subtle, it would make the film more effective.Despite this I liked the movie and the way the story unravels itself. The characters are complex, and very much like real-life people. Not pretty American actors and actresses with a lot of cosmetics, but people who could be ugly and beautiful at the same time. That makes the film realistic, even when the story is not that convincing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28798549f6374a1eb256d28486a9531b", "input": "Review: I thought this was a very good movie. It would have been nice to have seen a little more into the movie about the 2 sisters knowing about each liking the same boy before he was killed off. I'm sure if the movie had been done this way there would have been a very different ending, that's why this made this move such a good movie. It shows that no matter what happens in your life with your siblings that you can always get thru it and that if it's 2 sisters dealing with a boy, (the same boy) that working thru the pain and hurt makes things to seem better and easier to work out between the 2 of them. It's nice to see love stories that have a terrible thing to happen in someone's life that you can still get thru it become even closer after its over. I really enjoyed watching this movie, and I still do now when it comes on. I seem to find myself watching it every time it comes on. It would have been nice if there would have been a part 2 for this movie, maybe having the older sister to come up and have his baby, this would really have made a great finish to the story since he died, this way it would keep him alive even though he's dead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3563915400642e7bcb671c3ebbc3b86", "input": "Review: What an unusual movie.Absolutely no concessions are made to \"Hollywood special effects\" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f8ecac1775749f892c875246d622d19", "input": "Review: ***Possible Spoilers***When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes \"whole\".4/10 Movie-Man Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a239900811d140cf99d6999b694fff0f", "input": "Review: This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c573a4bc56a46c1b2f7e915e4e721e8", "input": "Review: The feel of this movie was amazing. Adam Sandler's performance was very inspiring. As he played a very rattled and fragile character, he took his ability to the very edge and really worked the role. His character was really interesting. I can see myself reading the script for this movie and not being half as interested in the part as Sandler made me. For someone who plays primarily comedy roles, he pulled off a serious role with what seemed to be his own quirks and input. I especially loved the scene in which Adam and Don's characters rode the motorized scooter around the city. I familiarized with the moment, because it seemed like Don was witnessing one thing Adam does to get away from it all. With his video games, music, and many other things he does to keep him from thinking about the past, riding his scooter with his headphones on seemed like an escape from his thoughts. This movie is definitely worth the watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad43b82e776f4e12b68c43a823394568", "input": "Review: \"Dance, Fools, Dance\" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and \"Dance, Fools, Dance\" is no exception. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27504915bcbe4e72a7a46f45a1f3ae66", "input": "Review: It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? \"PP\" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, \"This could be me\" sentiment. They are not funny either.The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated \"Sex and the City\". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the \"Voodoo Dr\" and his coping with widowhood.This concept might work with a whole new writing team. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-068d1cb4d25f43cf8c4343a058595ac1", "input": "Review: Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the \"Golden Age.\" Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how \"corrupt\" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9532172d5dc4b80a340e8d825969155", "input": "Review: Special effects? Good.Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack \"savior\" figure.Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccb4a633147c41f5a306f00eb49734b9", "input": "Review: Be careful with this one. Once you get yer mitts on it, it'll change the way you look at kung-fu flicks. You will be yearning a plot from all of the kung-fu films now, you will be wanting character depth and development, you will be craving mystery and unpredictability, you will demand dynamic camera work and incredible backdrops. Sadly, you won't find all of these aspects together in one kung-fu movie, EXCEPT for Five Deadly Venoms!Easily the best kung-fu movie of all-time, Venoms blends a rich plot, full of twists and turns, with colourful (and developed) characters, along with some of the best camerawork to come out of the 70s. The success of someone liking the film depends on the viewers ability to decipher which character is which, and who specializes in what venom. One is the Centipede, two is the Snake, three is the Scorpion, four is the Lizard, and five is the Toad. Each character has different traits, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. Therein lies the hook, we learn along with the student character, finding out who these different men turn out to be. We are in his shoes (so to speak), and we have to pick who we trust, and who we don't, just like he does. We learn along with him.Not only is the plot, the characters, and the camerawork great, it's also fun to watch, which in my book makes it more valuable than almost any other movie of it's kind. It's worth quite a few watches to pick up on everything that's going on. Venoms is a lesson on what kung-fu can really do...just don't expect many other kung-fu films to live up to it's gauntlet. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f65ef2f69ec345b09752f54c05a80b17", "input": "Review: It isn't always easy to explain what a movie is like, but this time I think I've found it. It reminded me of two movies: Trainspotting (small time criminals scoring some drugs and doing some stupid things in Schotland) and The Blair Witch Project (because of the style of filming).It's about the loyalty between two friends, one of them is coming out of jail, the other one hasn't been caught yet. With a stolen vehicle they drive through the Scottish countryside but than run out of petrol. As they try to find some fuel, they find a farm in the middle of nowhere. The farmer thinks they want to rob him and points a gun at one of them. Than it all goes wrong. One of the friends accidentally shoots the farmer's daughter and they have to run. What follows is a man hunt through the fields and woods of Schotland. The two friends literally have to run for their lives.Apparently this movie was shot in only 12 days time. OK, that's not exactly unbelievable because the biggest part of it is always in the same place: the Scottish countryside, but I still find that quite amazing. Especially because this isn't actually a bad movie. It's perhaps not the greatest movie ever, but they still can be proud of what they achieved. I had a nice time watching it and overall I enjoyed the movie. I give it a 7/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fcbb80fb2f4490a9298bada5ecf5b8f", "input": "Review: The third Fred MacMurray/Carole Lombard film is a bit more serious than Hands Across the Table and The Princess Comes Across. It's yet another adaption of the play Burlesque which apparently was popular back in the day.The original play Burlesque ran on Broadway in the 1927-1928 season for 372 performances and it's the role that Carole Lombard plays that Barbara Stanwyck originated on Broadway that brought her to Hollywood. A version starred Nancy Carroll in the early days of talkies and later on Betty Grable and Dan Dailey did still another version of it in When My Baby Smiles At Me.In fact I have a vinyl album of a radio version that Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler did for the Lux Radio Theater. That's an interesting work, believe me.Anyway MacMurray and Lombard do fine by the old chestnut, the story is now set in a nightclub where Lombard is a singer and MacMurray is a jazz trumpeter. Note a nice performance by Dorothy Lamour as the Latin vixen who gets between Fred and Carole. Also Anthony Quinn is in one of his earliest films as a wolf on the make for Lombard.Swing High, Swing Low holds up real nice today and I wouldn't be surprised if we see yet another version of Burlesque for the Twenty First Century. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b22563c621d4c55b01040b04e15e41a", "input": "Review: There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-65e773de0d0241aaa3c07158d422ed9d", "input": "Review: Unlike another user who said this movie sucked (and that Olivia Hussey was terrible), I disagree.This movie was amazing!!!!!! Olivia Hussey is awesome in everything she's in! Yeah she may be older now, because many remember her from Romeo and Juliet, but she's wonderful! This story line may be used quite often, but it's a unique movie and I'll fight back on anyone who disagrees! I enjoyed this movie just as much as I have any other Olivia Hussey movie. Olivia's \"my girl\" and I love her work.I saw this for the first time on Saturday (4/14/07) and fell in love with it. Not only because's it's an Olivia movie, but because of it's unique story line and wonderful direction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a63b569f1b7c48b5b038f26d336ffaac", "input": "Review: This movie is gorgeous. It's real and down to heart, but at the same time totally crazy. The characters are easy to fall in love with, because they have so many different minds, but each of us could refer to at least on. In Canada, we don't have many movies from Eastern Europe, and for the few I have seen, Loners is one of the best. It's very funny, and magic. If you want to see something new and refreshing, go see Loners. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6acbcb95cad643f4a79896e202782141", "input": "Review: As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of \"Nancy Drew\"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch........and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated \"Candleshoe\".In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1bbb34e9775348888871ae494ee33976", "input": "Review: Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a \"fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire\" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f142d1d2c25444fa616acecf35c512f", "input": "Review: I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in \"power\" that annoy you.If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against \"the man\", this movie is juvenile and boring.You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.If... only I could get my two hours back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-038aedf0b447449d9f8f6b0cb06155c6", "input": "Review: Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a2d8549692d4ca0b5327a5ce883e658", "input": "Review: If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-874e02d15f6b40d18c04cb18e6f22662", "input": "Review: Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5000e795a7054158ad079bea7031e73d", "input": "Review: Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- \"Saint Crispin's Day\" and all that.Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. \"I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither.\" That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.You'll just love it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d62ca2b37b3e4dd5a12961f90d32efc1", "input": "Review: A warm, touching movie that has a fantasy-like quality.Ellen Burstyn is, as always, superb.Samantha Mathis has given many great performances, but there is just something about this one will haunt your memory.Most of all, you've got to see this amazing 5-yr. old, Jodelle Ferland. I was so captivated by her presence, I had to buy the movie so I could watch her again and again. She is a miracle of God's creation.Judging by the high IMDB rating, I'm not the only one who was mesmerized by this young actress. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b2016609560496eaffc8757da0c7fe2", "input": "Review: I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say \"raccoon eyes?\"I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe793cfe0bbc4d6388f20b2a1d092b8e", "input": "Review: Before I start, I _love_ Eddie Izzard. I think he's one of the funniest stand-ups around today. Possibly that means I'm going into this with too high expectations, but I just didn't find Eddie funny in this outing.I think the main problem is Eddie is trying too hard to be Eddie. Everyone knows him as a completely irrelevant comic, and we all love him for it. But in Circle, he appears to be going more for irrelevant than funny, and completely lost me in places. Many of the topics he covers he has covered before - I even think I recognised a few recycled jokes in there.If you buy the DVD you'll find a behind-the-scenes look at Eddie's tour (interesting in places, but not very funny), and a French language version of one of his shows. Die-hards will enjoy seeing Eddie in a different language, but subtitled comedy isn't very funny.If you're a fan of Eddie you've either got this already or you're going to buy it whatever I say. If you're just passing through, buy Glorious or Dressed to Kill - you won't be disappointed. With Circle, you probably will. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b787b72b20a64928ab14fb532d2d1604", "input": "Review: Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad1d77fbc3c943ada2a54efaa67b61aa", "input": "Review: This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92cb2b099c2a44b5ba8d601f92a08e2e", "input": "Review: The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0ee9f03624047278c547ad2748b6b84", "input": "Review: I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6ab7153c2fc4dee89615c459dc0478c", "input": "Review: The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a \"man vs. cruel nature\" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no \"homage\" or \"tribute\" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).That we see something from \"behind the scenes\" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-05218bed6e2345fc8b25c2f9c5b256d7", "input": "Review: Where to begin? #1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... heA) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani JailsD) All of the aboveE) The producers were having a little too much bhang atthe time they approved the script?#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) \"If god wills it, we'll meet again\"... Basically meaning, \"I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!\" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8bed936322d481e8a2330e2d426f5ab", "input": "Review: Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this \"movie\" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73e81b096c7e4bbcb902339e39b18f15", "input": "Review: Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c2841f9096440cea3311a4dbb8e741f", "input": "Review: Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way \"upatz.\" He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as \"media.\" He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from \"Antigone,\" which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, \"I hate her.\" She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in \"Repulsion.\" The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.Worth it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9890ae8c189a4587bf82510e816db855", "input": "Review: What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.EXCELLENT 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c9c1ee42aee4bbeba960792e264d298", "input": "Review: I saw this film at a store in the cheap section. I actually vividly remembered seeing the commercials and trailer for it years ago. I thought \"What the hey' and bought it, basically because the plot sounded interesting and Claire Danes has always been someone of talent in my eyes (this was also before I became a huge Kate Beckinsale fan).So it's about two girls who sneak off to a vacation in Bangkok, get busted for narcotics (which they are innocent of) and then are sent to a Thailand prison. The film follows what will happen to them and at times questions their innocence.Both Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale give great performances, and the plot of this film wraps itself up unconventionally, and raises some nice moral discussion questions.I think this is a solid good film, but there could have been some improvements. It could have been longer...it would've helped to solidify these characters and more insight into the politics of Thailand's justice system would've helped.Nevertheless, other than that, it's a good film with some great performances.P.S. For all you pop-culture junkies be on the lookout for a two-minute role by Paul Walker. I didn't even notice him the first time I saw the film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7818851e5c094c3cb9eb124381c7fdd4", "input": "Review: I'm a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9aed93d245124e1babf2da3e781184f9", "input": "Review: It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73e69bfbe0d74ab79f29c66a77cd6452", "input": "Review: This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: \"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.\" So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ff7afe06a8a48299eb76f3741a4b341", "input": "Review: This movie stars Jay Leno as a Detroit cop, Tony Costas and Pat Morita as a Tokyo cop sent to Detroit to retrieve a stolen prototype of a car motor. A Japanese man traveled to Detroit hoping to sell it to a up and coming car company ran by a man named Derrick Jarryd. Unfortunately for him the men who were supposed to negotiate the deal killed him and took the prototype. An angry Derek Jarryd tries to distance himself from Phillip Madras who led the men. But Madras(played by Chris Sarandon) has none of it and threatens Jarryd forcing him to continue their partnership. Meanwhile in the same junk yard where the Japanese man had been killed, a friend of Tony Costas was also killed by the same men. Tony's friend had been watching the junk yard.Tony sets out to find the killer against his superior's order. Tony is on robbery while obviously homicide should investigate the case. While Tony is investigating the crime he runs into the Japanese cop and mistakingly he arrests him. Eventually they end up working together on the case. They make an odd pair and there are some genuinely amusing parts as well as some ridiculous scenes such as Pat Morita jumping and kicking right through a the windshield of a moving car and kicking Madras in the head. But it ends up being an enjoyable buddy cop movie, at least in my opinion. Jay Leno is no actor, but he is likable in the role and Pat Morita is good as well. Still, they make for one of the more unlikely buddy cop duos in an action film. If you liked buddy cop films, cheesy 80's movies or you want to see Jay Leno as an actor then I recommend this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82fd020d2f8547b5ae3c256fef726026", "input": "Review: This film is a travesty, and isn't fit to keep company with the superior original. The plot is an absolute mess, and the film is way too long. Everytime they're struggling, they desperately inject a sentimental reminder from the first film.\"Gregory's Girl\" is one of the top 10 British films of all time, this one is awful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bad065e8d6f4cd686ef88b45ec34434", "input": "Review: Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... \"Poetry\", \"hope\"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........ Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ac231fcb4bb4182b44612a823b264b2", "input": "Review: ... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5365463cb809459a82af4e76bef5c4dd", "input": "Review: If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call \"home\" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac7663606b8e4d39b9abfea42b49ffce", "input": "Review: I just viewed the film two days ago, and I was filled with anticipation, being that Paris is my second favorite city in Europe and I spent a very romantic 18 months there in the '80's. I was somewhat disappointed that most of this group of vignettes, while original and artistically done, did not capture the \"light\" and beauty of the city very well.Nor enough of the romance! We saw none of the tree-lined boulevards... There was too much darkness, not only literally but figuratively. Some of the plots manipulated the viewer it seemed, and let him/her down \"flat \"(the Marais sequence, the coiffure salesman sequence, to give two examples). The uplifting, good ones: The Mime sequence, the cemetery, the Montmartre (though it left too much to the viewer to comprehend), the \"Cowboy\" vignette ,and the Sacre Coeur-- seemed few and far between, and I would have liked to have seen such a wonderful actor as Orlando Bloom be in something that would have showcased his originality more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-822960d6ceae415a9fbd3a5aa69af44f", "input": "Review: This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How? 2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day. 3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0483e346f08748b68bf99f11bd4960ea", "input": "Review: The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-129f56b7deeb4ecda6fb1dc0c04ef17c", "input": "Review: A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote \"My Beautiful Laundrette\", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like \"Sunday, Bloody Sunday\" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-190c41632f3a4e198fc3a761741a397c", "input": "Review: A French film Ester Williams would love. But the synchronized swimming was only a hook for the story of three girls in a Paris exurbia finding themselves. No question where Sciamma's sympathies lie as all the boys are depicted as \"animaux\" but actually only the 3 girls are in focus, and for the entire time, with the few adults and the other adolescents being mostly in the background. Marie is a stick of a girl, unattractive, but determined. She wants to be a swimmer and forces herself on Floriane ( a Renascence quality beauty per one reviewer) and she is also a friend of convenience to Anna: not unattractive, but for her, the time of her body's perfection was short, and now she is an adolescent in a women's body. What ensues is a journey to self-realization without a road map but there is a glumness about the three that is un-natural: where is the gaiety and mindless chatter of youth? While the dénouement was breath taking, with Floriane's self-absorption beautifully portrayed, as well as the equally beautiful union of Marie and Anne, it all seemed abstract, Sciamma's puppets. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8cdff2e6d7b24630b335611b19a3b68a", "input": "Review: I won't claim to be a fan of Ralph Bakshi, because i am not. I have only watched 5 of his animated films so far: Coonskin, Wizards, Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings and finally \"Fire and Ice\". What i CAN claim, is that i found \"Fire and Ice\" to be the most enjoyable of the lot. It is a straightforward fantasy tale of swords and sorcery along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but the beautiful artwork, realistic animation and lively film score effectively lends a very classic charm to this movie.Deserving first mention, is the animation itself. I do not care what people say about rotoscoping but in my opinion Ralph Bakshi used that technique very effectively here. I was amazed at how realistic the movements of the characters were. The style of directing and the photo-realistic character designs made \"Fire and Ice\" feel more like a big budget fantasy blockbuster than a cartoon. Sadly the level of art detail tends to get a little inconsistent, especially near the end of the movie. Some scenes just look really flat with little to no body contour details or fabric folds and shadows on the characters.With realistic moving characters, realistic action would naturally follow. Not only was the action well choreographed, but it was really brutal. I would be so bold as to compare the brutality of the action to live action movies like Zack Snyder's 300. I did notice however that though there was blood shed, the blood splatters were kept to a minimum. Again, a great choice by the creative team that only heightens the viewing experience by not taking things too \"over the top\".Though i do not recognize any \"big names\" in the cast, the voice actors manage to deliver a satisfying performance; keeping the delivery of every line realistically subdued and only hamming it up in the case of the bad guys.Did i say bad guys?? yes i did. Because that is exactly what the story is about, a standard good vs evil tale. Nothing really original about the story which seems to merely be a mix of pre-existing fantasy film clichés that involve scantly clad warriors and maidens. Anyone looking for \"depth\" would be sorely disappointed. THe characters are not given much development and some of them like Nekron and Darkwolf are one dimensional at best(I did however hear rumor of some deleted scenes that explains Darkwolf's obsession with killing Nekron and his mother. Scenes like that deserved full restoration and should have been included in the final cut to add a level of depth to the show). In fact, i would not be surprised to find out that the whole movie was just a \"tech demo\" of sorts to showcase the awesome animation and art, with the story cobbled together and thrown in as an afterthought in order to pass it off as a proper \"movie\".A true classic of a bygone era, \"Fire and Ice\" really captures the blazing spirit of adventure and mysticism with its beautiful renderings of fantastic creatures and charming characters. It is a unique vision of a world created by Ralph Bakshi and artist Frank Frazetta with a good measure of action and suspense. Would it hold up to animated film standards of today? Definitely not. But i urge animation fans in general to \"get off your high horse\" and give this simple but beautiful film a chance to grow on you. It is Truly a gem of the 80s worth checking out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9091c22ba21c4d1b96f189279f7f94c4", "input": "Review: This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:(Singing at the very beginning credits);(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,(CROW SINGING)BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2679c4972cec40f6b145d78f50775528", "input": "Review: To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e86468fffc449bda5d33cb9c50bec95", "input": "Review: This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c6a2cc7e26e4b109984ec36b95d1a35", "input": "Review: I have never seen such terrible performances in all my life.Everyone in the entire film was absolute rubbish.Not one decent actor/actress in the whole film, it was a joke.Reminded me of drama at school... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0057a75280324f2a9a06e27a02c12d8c", "input": "Review: When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-290a082a4d454e87ae87e720119ac9a9", "input": "Review: A lot of the user comments i have seen on the IMDB for this movie don't really do it justice. First of all, let me just say that this movie is not to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be a fun, yet stupid movie, that doesn't require one to think, only to enjoy it. If you watch this movie with the intent to see a masterpiece in either filmmaking or in humour, then you will be sorely disappointed. Yet, if you want to just watch a goofy movie with some talented actors/actresses, and some good catch-phrases, then you will enjoy it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d8aaf3ea0934e45bb5d46edf211ae7d", "input": "Review: I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, \"so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.\" No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: \"WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!\" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars \"Is this more to your liking!?\" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at \"The Awards\" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, \"I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top.\" I see I have already spent more time commenting on \"The Lonely Lady\" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-278a29aa8b6c4480a573860d5cd937d4", "input": "Review: Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13c6b031a53e4a8783a5e83f151c6035", "input": "Review: In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. \"Amazon Women on the Moon\", \"Kentucky Fried Movie\", \"The Meaning of Life\", and \"Mr. Mike's Mondo Video\". Notice how I didn't mention \"Tunnel Vision\"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.My Grade: F Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6755f14d7c114dfabda0fc03229ba556", "input": "Review: Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like \"Dracula\" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed \"42nd Street\", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in \"42nd Street\", Ruby Keeler, and \"42nd Street\" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with \"Footlight Parade\"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88719484162b494090f37ebcfbaa6555", "input": "Review: Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.Bad mistake.The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: \"This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be.\"Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:() Coherent,() Interesting or engaging,() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a \"cool, modern, self-aware art-form\",() Hopefully better than \"The Idiots\".As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible \"plot\" \"twists!!!\" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn(x) So up its own behind with the whole \"I'm really smart, me\" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,(x) A genuine waste of my time.As for the undoubted ability of some people to \"get\" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the \"Genius is only recognised by the enlightened\" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.For me and many, many more people, its garbage. Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. \"The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All\"And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5536faaf1014ded9b7bfe2ce7d51086", "input": "Review: Saw this movie on its release and have treasured it since. What a wonderful group of actors (I always find the casting one of the most interesting aspects of a film). Really enjoyed seeing dramatic actress Jacqueline Bisset in this role and Wallace Shawn is always a hoot. The script is smart, sly and tongue-in-cheek, poking fun at almost everything \"Beverley Hills\". Loved Paul Bartel's \"doctor\" and Ray Sharkey's manservant. This was raunchy and crude, but thank god! Unless you're a prude, I heartily recommend this movie. FYI for anyone who likes to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon, Mary Woronov & Paul Bartel were in \"Rock & Roll High School\". Mary Woronov and Robert Beltran were in \"Night of the Comet\" together. They were all three in \"Eating Raoul\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39d994e7b56a48079a5d5c3d48216218", "input": "Review: Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female \"inmates\".Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.*1/2 out of **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-440d5845092a4dc1ab3ae79ee40e1922", "input": "Review: Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f0e1d59ec044af5adea57188d01531e", "input": "Review: The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cc2e6088eb34cd094e2510c10d6ad34", "input": "Review: This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fc5e148fd734ea5ba2ce4ab309679b5", "input": "Review: The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b089d50a53524ad894316c8990b3d907", "input": "Review: Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13440dfeb18642c9a8cc1d06ea9aba42", "input": "Review: In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-895daaf4e9d64d5692dde35fa1fc6679", "input": "Review: Gwyneth Paltrow is absolutely great in this movie, but the story is, unfortunately, half-baked, and David Schwimmer's energy is sort of like cold mush. When he closes his mouth and gets serious for a moment or two there is a rush of what-might-have-been. Who thought 25-year-old kiddies would be entertaining? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64f0d690a2504d289eca1be3a9aaf58e", "input": "Review: Bunny Comes Home 'This Man's Navy' deserves more credit than it gets, a clever script by Borden Chase, directed by 'Wild Bill' Wellman, the film has just the right feel for early post WW11 euphoria and goodwill, and none of the blind terror that came into play few years later. Produced in 1944, the Japanese defeated, the battle scenes a little déjà vu, Tom Drake's melancholy attraction for radiant young Jan Clayton has solid chemistry, plays real and validates Drake's career at Metro. The following year Jan opened on Broadway in 'Carousel.' Wally Beery, a little bleary-eyed, boasts to an always incredulous Jimmy Gleason… his memories an improvement over reality, and give Beery a Ulysses-like shadow to play against. The Navy LTA (Lighter Than Air) shots are authentic, photographed at Tustin and Lakehurst, and the P-38 squadron is out of March AFB. Lot 3 doubled for India, and Bunny's U-turn… Bunny Comes Home… gives back to Beery an authentic slice of his past, something he had wanted to believe was true… then, the future we spin into again is fantastical… now on a grander scale, a newly designed Navy LTA with launch capabilities for a reconnaissance plane… how expensive, blissfully optimistic… still, \"You got to believe in it, that's the way you make things come true…\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0850c603fea74fe190f20f0ca97a311c", "input": "Review: Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f63470703c4545cebde1ea06d18d6b64", "input": "Review: Four macho rough'n'tumble guys and three sexy gals venture into a remote woodland area to hunt for a bear. The motley coed group runs afoul of crazed Vietnam veteran Jesse (an effectively creepy portrayal by Alberto Mejia Baron), who not surprisingly doesn't take kindly to any strangers trespassing on his terrain. Director/co-writer Pedro Galindo III relates the gripping story at a steady pace, creates a good deal of nerve-rattling tension, and delivers a fair amount of graphic gore with the brutal murder set pieces (a nasty throat slicing and a hand being blown off with a shotgun rate as the definite gruesome splatter highlights). The capable cast all give solid performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Pedro Fernandez as the nice, humane Nacho, Edith Gonzalez as the feisty Alejandra, Charly Valentino as the amiable Charly, and Tono Mauri as antagonistic jerk Mauricio. Better still, both yummy blonde Marisol Santacruz and lovely brunette Adriana Vega supply some tasty eye candy by wearing skimpy bathing suits. Antonio de Anda's slick, agile cinematography, the breathtaking sylvan scenery, Pedro Plascencia's robust, shuddery, stirring score, the well-developed characters, and the pleasingly tight'n'trim 76 minute running time further enhance the overall sound quality of this bang-up horror/action hybrid winner. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-74678f18438641849188e86b9bd98bc7", "input": "Review: One of the best \"Amitabh comeback\" movies I liked. This was the phase when Govinda was going strong with Dhawan. The songs were awesome and totally as we call it \"masti\" type. An evergreen entertainer with the likes of the multifaceted Anupam Kher chipping in. The story line has a lot of hilarious twists and turns as is known for David Dhawan's potboilers. With a timely appearance by Mrs.Madhuri \"Nene\" Dixit, it was a total riot towards the end. It was great to see Amit perform with such force and humor after a long exile. Although some may consider it a typical \"Bollywood Masala\" movie, I would watch it any day. I am giving it an easy 8 out of 10 just for being pure Bollywood. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d298cd66bed8488baf73bd31fa10673c", "input": "Review: Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier \"living dead movies\",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's \"Evil Dead\".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f8a5ed932e24df6b366dae8f109a6ae", "input": "Review: This film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5296d8a6a9ee4e25a72463cbf2246285", "input": "Review: EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f20774cfdcca49ba9dd99740fa3b52d5", "input": "Review: An absolutely brilliant show. The second season began where the first ended, with much mystery. Suspense in most, if not all episodes and mystery everywhere. One that made me think and think again. It's truly amazing how the writer can come out with all the connections and link all the characters together and combine all these elements to make the lives of the characters in the show so meaningful. Never fail to excites and I am looking forward to the new season. Hopefully more secrets will be reveal and at the same time, more mystery to be solved. Good selection of cast too for this show, fit the characters perfectly. Really can't wait to finally discover the secret. Hopefully all the hype won't spoil the ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8777141cbd3844368be25abf7ac11ff1", "input": "Review: This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f0b80ee0af44e02831603627f979d13", "input": "Review: I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d7fbf3432cd481da550e67be0b8e51e", "input": "Review: OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of \"Matlock.\" I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30cc79c49a354b8babf23576175639e7", "input": "Review: Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e15c40aa61b491aba9bbced019b3256", "input": "Review: Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1999e9f4900942a6b4e93e75b9f10d55", "input": "Review: Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur – even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.But it wouldn't be a ‘Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was ‘Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen – and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman – he was also ‘Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing – it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.Animation holds a special place in my heart – but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-196bed4686f54209b629880952b8ead8", "input": "Review: So one person says, \"This movie is a beautiful, delicate exploration of West German life after World War II.\" And the other says, \"Former Nazis living in bombed out buildings, and the movie is 'beautiful, delicate'?\" And the first sits there nodding, takes another sip of coffee. \"I can't explain. Just see it.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c05df2c6f3945b387e54ff3a99cd24b", "input": "Review: A unique film...one of the best of all time. Acting, script, Quincy Jones' score, cinematography, editing, etc. -- just fantastic. As most viewers know, this movie is based on Truman Capote's book about the famous murder of a Kansas farm family (the Clutters) by a couple of young guys during a misguided robbery. I've never seen a movie that so brilliantly turned a true story into a riveting film. The actors are solid across the board, but the focus is on the killers, Dick and Perry, and the law enforcement team pursuing them. Scott Wilson, as Dick Hickock is amazing. Cocky, twitchy, and devoid of compassion he comes across so charming, oily and plausible. Robert Blake as Perry Smith is extraordinary as well -- lonely, and at once empathetic and cold-blooded. Who could fold these characteristics into one individual and make us buy it? He does, and it's brilliant! A key point of the book is how it took the intersection of these two very differently sociopathic individuals to create the critical mass to commit such a stupid and heinous crime, and these two actors make it work beautifully. Both had moments in their subsequent careers, but these performances are high water marks, and that stands for acting period. The cops are wonderful too. Leading the investigation is John Forsythe, but the other three detectives are great as well. Unlike contemporary movies where producers feel it necessary to endow police with superhuman assets or foibles, these are just genuine flatfeet, working the case with determination and competence. They seem so real. I've never seen cops on the screen so powerful in their authenticity; and I've seen most of the crime classics going way back. Really one of a kind in this respect. PARTIAL SPOILER COMING (this movie's unique in that you already know what's happened, but I'm warning for the record). Of course, the best scenes from the best crime shows and movies are the interrogations -- the intellectual fencing matches between the cops and the crooks, Mano a Mano. This movie has hands down the best interrogation scenes you'll ever see on film. Watch Dick and Perry try to bluff their way through and slowly unravel, unaware the cops have the goods on them. But the cops need to deftly prep their suspects to fracture their alibis and hopefully elicit confessions. This is some of the best acting you'll ever see. Think Glengarry Glen Ross without the showboating. To help translate the sad and horrific angles of this true story, ICB was filmed at the actual Clutter house, and I've heard the Clutters were played by film students to give them a genuine feel. It works. These seem like decent, simple folk. It makes the crime so palpable and sad. I'll stop here. It's not a feel-good movie, but it is one of the best movies ever made, and so unique, it's mandatory viewing for every film buff. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa80a67109b94a26bb0c50ee4f625c08", "input": "Review: Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8922b37c9082404495e7a38ce4511b92", "input": "Review: \"Father is still away on business\" was headline of an review after \"Promise Me This\" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in \"Life Is A Miracle\". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ddf4aabe9dd4286b6c41139fd91d952", "input": "Review: You're using the IMDb.You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.It's something you enjoy doing.And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.The word genius is often overused.THIS is genius. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cedfc84664a44361a1d35e7fbda3906d", "input": "Review: Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f025a01be05e4b119ed24ac8c30580ae", "input": "Review: I guess this goes to prove that Joe Don Baker will do anything for a buck. The concept of the film wasn't very good to start with. This movie has so many bad things about it I don't know where to start. The acting is horrible. The cinematography is marginal at best. The soundtrack was pretty bad. The score is terrible. There's a reason why this movie ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I voted before I wrote this and I cannot believe that 9 people actually thought this \"film\" is excellent. They must have liked the two go-go dancers. Final justice would be if they locked this stinker in the film vault outside Wichita and never let anyone see it again! A 1 out of 10 rating is far better than this deserves. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a2aea7fb3f04317af6cf51c86c96cf6", "input": "Review: \"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key\" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from \"State of Mind\".One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble \"whodunnit\" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular \"State of Mind\" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just \"placed in a box and locked away in a drawer\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39cd4490d015465fb6cdb891ac4a4763", "input": "Review: After the success of the second instalment, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton decided that Blackadder should have a third appearance. This time instead of Tudor times or Elizabethan times, Edmund Blackadder (BAFTA nominated Rowan Atkinson) is living in the time of the French Revolution. Accompanied by the now stupid but lovable Baldrick (Tony Robinson) Blackadder is the \"faithful\" butler to George, the Prince Regent of Wales (Hugh Laurie). Throughout this third series to the wonderfully written sitcom Blackadder tries everything he can to get rich and powerful. He tries electing a lord for a rotten borough, tries to sell a book, tries to win a bet about The Scarlet Pimpernel, tries to be a highway man and finally poses as the Prince. This is a very good instalment to the popular comedy. Includes appearances from Robbie Coltrane, Tim McInnerny, Miranda Richardson and Stephen Fry. It won the BAFTA for Best Comedy Series, and it was nominated for Best Design and Best Make Up. Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and Blackadder (all four series) was number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom. Outstanding! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-45c3676bf6084574bb565ad7fce5d403", "input": "Review: I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the \"hype\" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of \"mostly true\" fiction is the way things really were there. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a25fb522bd4d42cc95e98fe5b3d568a8", "input": "Review: There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as \"pretty awful\" or \"not much good\", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't \"good\" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aa44d74ba8f473d89c1b4e78230bf61", "input": "Review: I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d000d7aa79e044b5bb5936fdda586cee", "input": "Review: If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is \"baby face\". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e39c5b8c36614074bc5d77c14da11902", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc66f3733cb94845a4ca5a4ec060ae71", "input": "Review: That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfdffaf62b464fb4803cf82c4ead682f", "input": "Review: I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-df7b34de50ce4d0986b1009414fa4fbb", "input": "Review: This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bdb77fd28574d5fb5ed80a0ea949d0b", "input": "Review: OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d0c761159504cde8ff9b8efbc3e1476", "input": "Review: Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, \"My god this looks like a really bad sitcom.\" Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d6324ea42d94323bc24ae08354e9f4d", "input": "Review: I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking \"the German dream\" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa4f0a9096694fad864b05e86ded1c9a", "input": "Review: The reasons to watch this knock off... err... tribute to a great movie called Se7en: - It's on while your channel surfing and there's nothing else on. - Someone pays you to watch it.Do yourself a favor and pop in the DVD for Se7en, rent it, download it on iTunes, or put it in your Netflix cue and skip The Flock entirely. The Flock the same story with with a few changes. Furthermore the editing just wreaks of Se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. The worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots, with sounds of people people chattering over the radio, except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one.Bottom line: I call it a blatant knock off. If you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film, go ahead, but either way go watch Se7en. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-85263805dbbe4fcc84cc4afc7f8ee3b1", "input": "Review: Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f66377d5714544178991d3182a92548d", "input": "Review: My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a65f2e9538934f858f728e771310b824", "input": "Review: The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6862d76332c940769b93ce551fc3798d", "input": "Review: This is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6333ad568cb849e8a1ccda09fc3f1654", "input": "Review: I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca8cb5c1f75b49418a6e00af923fa3f9", "input": "Review: I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is \"worst movie ever\". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the \"worst\" ever? A video not \"movie\" like \"zombiez\" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like \"Garden State\", \"Wedding Crashers\" and \"I heart huckabees\" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked \"stupid\" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e41f0a129ad944a1ad28116bc6ae0d8a", "input": "Review: A movie you start watching as a late night cable porn..... It is hot in that department but it has even a lot more.... It has a sense of humor... some action in and out of the \"bed\" and it has reasonable acting as well as a story worth watching...A definite adult only movie but well worth watching... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f869479ca1104e628f431630c9a77431", "input": "Review: I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b33dfb3f5d5d44a2bb1b7dd5bf7915d5", "input": "Review: I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right?? Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad5a0bdbff744abbb496281ef2ac6096", "input": "Review: This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping \"Was that it?!\" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5d27b228dc14ec290700a5f1a2de902", "input": "Review: As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this \"addition\" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next \"blockbuster\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29c9f0bf60664d788e9527a8b3b6346e", "input": "Review: This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b667ef710f36435bba77a8c02e694cc4", "input": "Review: for whoever play games video games here did anybody notice that the GTA:Vice City Mansion inside the game and some other things including weapons from the movie that are connected to this movie and this movie inspired the makers of the game (Rockstar Games) to copy some things from this movie and by the way this is one of the best 80's movies out there i recommend this for anybody who still didn't see it 10/10 no questions asked Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-662540c7898c45b6ac53726ce8be844e", "input": "Review: This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.Sad, very sad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc9285aeb56f4c2ba45fb19dd10dc42d", "input": "Review: I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of \"adult\" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fff8204d7f84fec9fe64864bb176293", "input": "Review: 'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed \"Lubitsch touch\" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States – perhaps in the blustery streets of New York – but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film – in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-711c5d3116a2444fb26ed8accc59f035", "input": "Review: It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0861698da8f4875965244b942a71b85", "input": "Review: Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e76308a196634529b7d1d90ed0e0dd01", "input": "Review: Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in \"The Unknown Man,\" a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.\"The Unknown Man\" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinée idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.Very good movie with good performances. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f49ea24c05142328cf383bd1f74af40", "input": "Review: Sisters In Law is made by the same directors of the rather curiously fascinating 'Divorce, Iranian Style' which was as exactly as it stated, as we got a glimpse of Divorce court in Iran. Now they've turned their attention to the court system in Cameroon, Africa. What's great about this court is that 2 of the magistrates are Women, which is unusual for such a country like this. Anyways, they deal with plenty of men used to getting their way around the women, but this film is remarkable in the fact that it appears that women has made great strides in society, with divorce legal and women's rights being recognized. So the judges often chastise the men for behaving in a primitive way in these times. Not to say that the women who appear at the court get the softer treatment. One of the prime focuses of the film is a case of child abuse done by an Aunt. The judges waste no time in lashing out at the woman with fury. And who said that justice isn't served anymore? With these 2 behind the bench. They often carry out maximum penalties! Ya! You go girl! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea019c3c2cc942cca5a9d91fe3014c1f", "input": "Review: I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see \"Kentucky Fried Movie\" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe941f45d5074746ac40112ea5e1bf01", "input": "Review: Joan Crawford had just begun her \"working girl makes good\" phase with the dynamic \"Paid\" (1930). She had never attempted a role like that before and critics were impressed. So while other actresses were wondering why their careers were foundering (because they were clinging to characters that had been the \"in\" thing a few years before but were now becoming passe) Joan was listening to the public and securing her longevity as an actress. The depression was here and jazz age babies who survived on an endless round of parties were frowned upon. Of course, if you became rich through immoral means but suffered for it - that was alright.This film starts out with a spectacular house boat party. Bonnie Jordan (Joan Crawford) is the most popular girl there - especially when she suggests that everyone go swimming in their underwear!!! However, when Bonnie's father has a heart attack, because of loses on the stock market, both Bonnie and her brother, Rodney (William Bakewell) realise who their real friends are. After Bob Townsend (Lester Vail - a poor man's Johnny Mack Brown) offers to do the \"right thing\" and marry her - they had just spent a night together when Bonnie declared (with abandon) that she wants love on approval - she starts to show some character by deciding to get a job.She finds a job at a newspaper and quickly impresses by her will to do well. Her working buddy is Bert Scranton (Cliff Edwards) and together they are given an assignment to write about the inside activities of the mob. Rodney also surprises her with the news that he also has a job. She is thrilled for him but soon realises it is bootlegging and he is mixed up with cold blooded killer, Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Rodney witnesses a mass shooting and goes to pieces, \"spilling the beans\" to the first person he sees drinking at the bar - which happens to be Bert. He is then forced to kill Bert and after- wards he goes into hiding. The paper pulls out all stops in an effort to find Bert's killer and sends Bonnie undercover as a dancer in one of Jake's clubs. (Joan does a very lively dance to \"Accordian Joe\" - much to Sylvie's disgust). The film ends with a gun battle and as Rodney lies dying, Bonnie tearfully phones in her story.This is a super film with Crawford and Gable giving it their all. Natalie Moorehead, who as Sylvie shared a famous \"cigarette scene\" with Gable early in the film, was a stylish \"other woman\" who had her vogue in the early thirties. William Bakewell had a huge career (he had started as a teenager in a Douglas Fairbanks film in the mid 20s). A lot of his roles though were weak, spineless characters. In this film he played the weak brother and was completely over-shadowed by Joan Crawford and the dynamic newcomer Clark Gable - maybe that was why he never became a star.Highly Recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-95e86cff54154dc591347c8437466b44", "input": "Review: A film with very little positive to say for it.Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen \"that\" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on \"medication\".With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk \"horror\" music fails to add atmosphere.Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac1371dbde8244779a4c01809876566d", "input": "Review: Due to the invention of a \"The Domestication Collar\", flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in \"The Wild Zone\". In the town of \"Willard\", pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's \"Domestication Collar\" is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's \"Timmy and Lassie\") and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling \"Zomcom\" authorities. \"Fido\" doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing \"Wild Zone\"; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ebe970c4b124e4fbeff089f348bedaa", "input": "Review: This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e3e51e514f94d5aa064dc3b63806f3e", "input": "Review: This is by far one of my favorite of the American Pie Spin offs mainly because in most of the others the main character (one of the young Stiflers) always seems unrealistic in nature. For example AP: The Naked Mile. You have a teenage guy surrounded by naked college chicks , and has one in particular hot on his trail to rid him of his virginity \"problem\" and he ends up stopping mid-deed and rides a horse back to sleep with his girlfriend, who keep in mind gave him a \"guilt free pass\" for the weekend. I can appreciate the romantic aspect of the whole thing but let's be realistic; most people who are watching these movies aren't particularly searching for a romantic story.Whereas the most recent installment finally seems to realize who the audience is and good old Erik Stifler seems to wake up and smell the roses and as always Mr. Levenstein lends his \"perfectly natural\" eyebrow humor to the equation and scored a touchdown with this new movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f749bff61c1e46d4a3aeddb9b74e3b7d", "input": "Review: I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c47e0a76f4934daa9794974125403452", "input": "Review: Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of \"American Psycho,\" and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bdc9ae4847746199c6e947565e814d2", "input": "Review: I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-569f3de554bf4108b674198a8d466a08", "input": "Review: In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.The polemic and shameful \"Cama de Gato\" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): \"Cama de Gato\" (\"Bed of the Cat\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16250715205a412c9ff5815f00202cfc", "input": "Review: I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, \"Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!\" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the \"hilarious\" and \"outstanding\" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered \"comedy\" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a231a1853c174d00a3b8e35b10414347", "input": "Review: I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d64cdc5748140a69f2dbf3c9f390aaa", "input": "Review: Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-81205aeb15454bbb952fa4325ae638c9", "input": "Review: An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7527ac5e216c4a36abb244326c42c6ca", "input": "Review: I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.Intriguing.NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40cd067f9bc747b48cf2f615929a4a19", "input": "Review: A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.My Grade: A- Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6cf922fa71c49a8b16f8ed8a1e46a93", "input": "Review: ... It even beats the nasty \"raw\". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f093e87c88e4238a880dd0f39b06dce", "input": "Review: A very strange and compelling movie. It's about a very awkward and tightly wound man who attempts to navigate his life as a door-to-door fundraiser/salesman. The director was able to capture a very unnerving tone that really served the story well. Original and unsettling while also finding a great deal of humor in the pain that accompanies life. There is a sequence at a testing facility that really stood out and made me laugh out loud which is not something I do as frequently as I should. One of the more memorable films I've seen in a long while. Hasn't left my mind and I look forward to future efforts by Bronstein. Fantastic performances all around. The simple line \"I really appreciate it.\" is now iconic to me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33651f5914c146cb90fcc4257988476b", "input": "Review: the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham-fisted and cliché ridden.I cant blame the actors, but surely someone must have said \"are you joking I cant say this!\"This episode had a press perspective and police perspective, while the police perspective was standard enough, the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable.I notice that this was an HBO co production, if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light,I was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and I am still waiting for the suspense.Skip Five Daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top.This story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable.For a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions.so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour.I then began looking for Journalists called \"Scoop\" and for Perry White to make an appearance.I saw the 2009 Hunter before \"five days\"made it to Australia, not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to Bonneville and McTeer going around again.Head shakingly awful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-418defba1cd84528b2675c8c1a33564d", "input": "Review: I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the \"experts\" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0cfe336d25041ce9fb8f73baee7892a", "input": "Review: The plot, character development, and gags in this movie are all extremely weak. Quite a waste of time. The conclusion of Saving Grace is supposed to make one feel warm and fuzzy as though the characters have grown through their struggles. There was no such development to make such warm fuzzy feelings possible. The drug gags are cliched and much of the movie doesn't ring true to life. The plot builds what is supposed to be tension but the characters aren't developed enough to care. Then it rushes through a resolution of all the outstanding problems in about a minute of screen time leaving the viewer feeling like they have just wasted their time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ae4f5430402459e945e1c247bc2a100", "input": "Review: This movie is one for the ages. First, I have to say after seeing this once, it became one of my all-time favorite movies. Why? Simple; Ben Coccio (writer, director)has put together a true piece of art. Where 99.9% of movies these days are purely entertainment, director Ben Coccio gives us truth, gives us reality, gives us a learning tool to know why this happened. The mainstream media spins and spins but Ben Coccio looks school shootings right in the face, able to go where no other form of media has EVER gone before, into the minds and hearts of two young men planning to kill their classmates. While it surely is graphic and horrifying, how couldn't it be? The gloves come off, the lies and the sugar coating of our media masters is brushed aside and we are taken to a place where we can find truth in what happened. Sometimes it isn't just a screw loose like everyone likes to think, no, sometimes hatred and isolation are deeper, are more human, we are shown that these boys are us and we them. Society left them behind and the consequences are horrifying and real.Respect and love your fellow man. A lesson we all should learn, thank you so much for making this film Mr. Coccio, I hope with great anticipation that you will continue your film-making career. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7e3d78a673f4d8a8a8984c4f707ba5d", "input": "Review: There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1b2efba27c64308bbc2a171f494c9b4", "input": "Review: I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5138ce6a0dcc46518af6f9fd28b92b16", "input": "Review: It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the \"stage\", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the \"heat is on\", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the \"saitn\" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A- Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b424a6c6453e4fac9e570e39d1561f0d", "input": "Review: Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film \"Hitokiri\" (manslayer; aka \"Tenchu\" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in \"western\" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name \"Hitokiri,\" a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the \"Loyalist\" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. \"Brilliant History Lesson\" indeed!No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of \"leveling\" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's \"Black Ships,\" the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from \"selling out the country.\" (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with \"Goyokin,\" which Gosha made in the same year. But, where \"Goyokin\" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, \"Hitokiri\" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a \"Bonanza\" episode.Barry Freed Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae439aeb015b4f5983e9f2b9ac42124d", "input": "Review: What's with all the negative comments? After having seen this film for the first time tonight, I can only say that this is a good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day. When I saw that Drew (Ben Affleck) might end up spending the holidays alone, I wanted to cry. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. Also, even though I liked Tom (James Gandolfini) and Alicia (Christina Applegate) after awhile, if you ask me, they were real snobs. However, this film did make me smile and feel good inside. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Mike Mitchell has scored a pure holiday hit. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this good holiday comedy that is sure to brighten up any lonely person's day to any Ben Affleck or Christina Applegate fan who hasn't seen it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-91e0823f89f8445d99f7aac18873902c", "input": "Review: Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the \"daughter\" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her \"dad\".That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent \"PokeMon; the First Movie\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b65034dbde524897966c25885d502898", "input": "Review: This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.But I have a few complaints.Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d7d9a0bc4e44d83819d8598177de32f", "input": "Review: This movie is more Lupin then most, especially coming from Funimation. Other then the bad dub, it isn't bad.The first hour is a lot like the Comic (which is what all Lupin the 3rd stuff is based on). Lupin's trying to get a huge treasure. Fujiko's using Lupin's weakness to women to try to get something out of it. The last bit isn't that bad, he's with another women, but of course Fujiko's still him number one.A lot of the other Lupin movies are more Family with cuss words then Lupin. Any good Lupin fan I think will be pleasantly surprised (I know I was after hearing so many bad things about this movie). It might be a bit better without the little animations rolling during the credits (they make it a little mushy) but overall, it isn't a bad film. Good enough to be one of the few I'd watch again of the Lupin III movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c40620eace3a4222b7ad0d9487ec9eb2", "input": "Review: Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70fa90214dfa40369c23b02f67ea201d", "input": "Review: I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-311ee7be05194d67a7ff8c97701b28a1", "input": "Review: Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no \"Stifler's Mom\". She's way sexier.I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her \"separated at birth\" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced \"Deux Femmes En Or\", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c54a6b90d61c4c7595117aa8e6e9eb3a", "input": "Review: First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7bd528b08124375af59c225d357a230", "input": "Review: It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see \"The Medusa Touch\" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced \"Harper\" and \"The Long Goodbye\"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated \"L.A. Confidential\" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for \"Gandhi\") and an international cast, I found \"The Medusa Touch\" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider \"Carrie\" and the underrated \"The Fury\" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5857a4fb8c34b25afcd88fc2addb584", "input": "Review: George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a2883d830d24453befc09d6f3dba306", "input": "Review: This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about \"blood surfing\". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e2b5bfb71d3467c9928875b4cd094dd", "input": "Review: how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7654175869434a709c431e2f5629d264", "input": "Review: First off, I must say that I made the mistake of watching the Election films out of sequence. I say unfortunately, because after seeing Election 2 first, Election seems a bit of a disappointment. Both films are gangster epics that are similar in form. And while Election is an enjoyable piece of cinema... it's just not nearly as good as it's sequel.In the first Election installment, we are shown the two competitors for Chairman; Big D and Lok. After a few scenes of discussion amongst the \"Uncle's\" as to who should have the Chairman title, they (almost unanimously) decide That Lok (Simon Yam) will helm the Triads. Suffice to say this doesn't go over very well with competitor Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) and in a bid to influence the takeover, Big D kidnaps two of the uncles in order to sway the election board to his side. This has disastrous results and heads the triads into an all out war. Lok is determined to become Chairman but won't become official until he can recover the \"Dragon Head Baton\", a material representation of the Chairman's power. The current Chairman, Whistle (Chung Wang) has hidden the baton somewhere in mainland China and the race is on to see who can recover it first.Much of the film is devoted to the recovery of the Baton. As both aspiring leaders search for it they must dodge cops and opposite sides, which leads into one of the stand out scenes in Election, which involves an underling named Jet (Nick Cheung), a machete, and lots of bad guys. Nick Cheung's presence is attention grabbing to say the least... I wonder if this influenced director Johhnie To in any way while making the second Election, as he does deliver more of Jet's character in the sequel.While Nick Cheung gives a scene stealing performance, I must not fail to give due to the rest of the film's actors. Election has a great ensemble cast with well thought out performances that are both subtle and impacting. Simon Yam is his usually glorious self and the film also benefits from heavyweight HK actors like Louis Koo, Tony Leung Ka Fai, and the under-appreciated Suet Lam. There really aren't any weak links in the acting and one could easily believe that they're watching real gangsters.Although the performances are great, one of the most impressive things about Election is Johnnie To's eye for the camera. There are some truly striking shots in the film and it goes without saying that To definitely knows how to frame his shots, as the viewer is treated to a series of innovative and quite brilliant camera placings and angles. All of which makes Election, above all, a great looking film.My issues with the film arises mostly out of the shear amount of characters involved in Election. It gets a bit hard to follow because the film is so full of characters that aren't integral to the plot. While the sequel opts to focus more on the two candidates, the first Election offers the election process as a whole with tons of Uncles, underlings, and police officers crowding the storyline. Maybe the film would have worked better if it would have been a bit longer with more time dedicated to the inner workings of the Triad, or if Director Johnnie To would have funneled down the necessary elements and expounded on them more. Bottom Line- All in all, this is a wonderfully brutal film with a great cast, excellent direction, and leisurely pacing that packs a punch. It's just a little more complicated than it needed to be. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3d68df017bd47928684b49641acc374", "input": "Review: There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-161e4024f0594a72a7bc48079e6df722", "input": "Review: 'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21f09a88c5c1410b90c5006516890fba", "input": "Review: Holly addresses the issue of child sexploitation that is rampant all over the world (some 2 million children are trafficked every year) and does so sensitively and without manipulation--a tall order that the team at Priority Films does with great success. American actor Ron Livington stars in the film alongside newcomer Thuy Nguyen, a Vietnamese actress who plays Holly, and together they bring to screen what is commonplace to the people at the notorious k11 redlight district in Cambodia. Although it tackles a heavy topic, the film holds on to moments of laughter and hope as we get to know the characters up close, keeping the two-hour film from being one that is too difficult to watch. I am glad a film like this is bringing the world's attention to the problem. Child prostitution needs to be stopped and this is a very good first step. It's GREAT and a film EVERYONE must see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a921c116d3d0480b9c0333dcf376708a", "input": "Review: It appears that there's no middle ground on this movie! Most of it takes place in a dream and, like most dreams, it's often foolish and illogical. It's also a gorgeous production with some great songs and fine performances, especially by our angel.Jeanette's deadpan, unknowing insults and various other faux pas at the dream reception are hilarious, and her jitterbug with Binnie Barnes is a surprise and a delight. At one point, she gets to sing a snippet from Carmen, followed by the final trio of Faust (holding a lapdog, for some strange reason), then \"Aloha Oe\" on the beach! It's a surreal comedy--tremendously entertaining if you can get into the groove. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52d950798a1f4638b6c44488793f189f", "input": "Review: Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27f7929d42de4771bf3fe31febb3a76d", "input": "Review: First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat (\"I'm going home in a bag!\"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in \"The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao\" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning. If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....-Ramsay \"RC\" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48f898a0f97b40979e6f97236151f643", "input": "Review: I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d96fbb59e9cc4fca9463a80afafd7c1e", "input": "Review: I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ce9d4b6e40940a2883d5784ec886528", "input": "Review: Somewhere near the bottom of the film studio ladder you can find companies like U.F.O, Troma and beneath them lie Seduction cinema.Seduction is a direct to video production company that specialize in lesbian themed, non-hardcore erotic movies. It has developed a very dedicated fan base that purchase each new title as they are released but sadly the company has become too closely associated with frequent star Misty Mundae. I say sadly because recent mainstream interest and her appearance on the show Masters of Horrors has caused her to set her sights a little higher than the zero budget S.C efforts which forces the company to find a new identity. But back in their glory days they released this film on a very appreciative world.The gorgeous Misty Mundae is forced to attend a boarding school at the request of a absent father. At the school she meets her absurdly hot room-mate played by Ruby Larocca who immediately has designs on her but the headmistress (Barbara Joyce) has other plans. In typical S.C style the movie stops every ten minutes for a extended sex scene but unlike most of their efforts this one has a somewhat interesting story and a couple of good performances. Ms. Larocca appears to be having a great time as the sexual predator who views Misty as a tasty meal and Darian Caine makes a welcome (though brief) appearance as Satan. This is the sort of film that Jess Franco would crank out in the 70s (although this one does not have the hardcore sex that Franco was always willing to throw in for foreign sales) and fans of that madman's work would be wise to give this one a go.To me, as a long time zero budget cinema fan (and Troma worshiper), I came across the Seduction cinema films through their parody films (Playmate of the apes, Who wants to be a erotic billionaire) but I actually prefer their more original works. You either see past the low budget and occasionally weak acting or you get hung up on these things and just hate all of these films. For me the most obvious thing that unites these no-budget movies is a real sense of fun. These low budget companies are able to create their own unique style which gives the viewer something very different from the bland, by the numbers, studio efforts that load up the multiplexes.If you have never seen a Seduction cinema film either this or Sin Sisters (featuring both of the Mundae sisters) are excellent choices to begin with. This one is a fun, fast paced film (although the frequent exterior shots of the school do get a little old) and the DVD is totally loaded with extras including a ton of previews of other company offerings, a great behind the scenes featurette and some deleted scenes including a alternate opening. I do recommend you pass on the disc's bonus feature, the first film by director, as it is quite weak and not really worth viewing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-80e33b842f794d13a6877be509e77fc3", "input": "Review: John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5505c6df3d7e44359a1e07b7bc46a99d", "input": "Review: If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to \"Ned Kelly\" as an \"Australian Western.\" For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.Perhaps because we've encountered this \"gentleman bandit\" scenario so many times in the past, \"Ned Kelly\" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.\"Ned Kelly\" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55a5b1c421c749c58b636dd1d8455f75", "input": "Review: This movie can be interpreted on many different levels. Don't listen to the other comments bashing the movie and saying that it is a played again story or w/e and that it is just about drugs. It has very overt superficial metaphors about drugs; however, the rest of the movie (and why I think it was personally made) is really not about that at all. It is really mocking psychology and the conditioning of society. It shows, for a split second, that the main character's brother is watching those sick videos online. Why? My interpretation is that it is to demonstrate that all of this gruesomeness that we are exposed to makes it easier for us to be mechanical in our professions instead of seeing people as people. As far as the scene about logic, it is also reaching out to the people who were in the federally mandated 1% smart classes who are confused and frustrated because life isn't as predictable and mathematical and logical as it seems on a macroscopic level. You have to apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (along with all the other laws and principles of uncertainty) not just to physics but to life and leave room to change your plans and adjust along the way. One of the best movies I have ever seen. It just might go way above your head; it isn't for you it is for those people who are are having trouble coping with life not working out like a math problem. When you are critically analyzing a movie or writing your critical review's try not reading the back cover first (written by marketers and parapsychologists) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d9aa595f2974df6a1affbe3ccd137ca", "input": "Review: Needless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f50bf556c864a9eb2416609789230c5", "input": "Review: I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see \"Kentucky Fried Movie\" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-848d81be6458455ea3a7b36adc261cc8", "input": "Review: This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"11 de Setembro\" (\"September 11\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2786fafb3acd4a69a0c6b49c5defdab5", "input": "Review: I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-345ef396e329405db661993be72f60bd", "input": "Review: Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42a8050b190641769aa3730c8c31578a", "input": "Review: Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder \"What would I do in this situation?\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51fad765f32e43598bde4e6613de2a32", "input": "Review: Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...***SPOILERS***Professional \"Slayer\" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these \"experimental pills\" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left......avoid this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec0680dc0a7d4a9d8839fe5d520cdac0", "input": "Review: This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-357246387887448ea28487cd6e487edd", "input": "Review: We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d332bf8575a4ec0b8d14918923ebfd8", "input": "Review: Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a \"serious\" superhero movie but at least its entertaining. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21774db991294c2dbf4b2fecec99a04a", "input": "Review: -A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with \"Flightplan\" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of \"24\" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing \"Cursed\" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-495211bd3a9e4f069b73d532a94f5ea0", "input": "Review: I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce1fc500322b45dab01c2e2ad0f20ccb", "input": "Review: OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. \"So what's the secret....punks?\" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. \"Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers\" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b85ce33b65b74374a43f25eed5425708", "input": "Review: I got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the \"background\" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that \"home movie\" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer. If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e9af164889f4507bb107b238cecf74f", "input": "Review: This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. \"Spirit\" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so. \"Spirit\" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7c635e4a38a4634b4ec218f27468b12", "input": "Review: This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's \"Mysterious Island\". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. \"OK now stand up.\" As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbf7d87cbbb74edc9cd77c30a151d42e", "input": "Review: This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen… I don't really know why… Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way… I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't… Just don't waste your time on this one… Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f66a768c07aa4f859249ddfe3245ca2c", "input": "Review: I am extremely picky about the films I see. I'd heard about Moon Child completely by accident. I've been a fan of L'Arc En Ciel for some time and a fan of Gackt and Mizer only recently.I finally found out the film was being re-released and picked it up without a second thought.Being as critical as I am about films, I will admit, the action scenes can be somewhat hokey at times...but they're meant too be, as another user suggested, it's the quintessential calm before the storm, quoting Gary Oldman from Leon...without getting into the spoilers, the film hit me extremely hard, because you realize that the boundaries of friendship are limitless and as they often say, true friendship is loyalty and like marriage, it's until death do you part.Hyde and Gackt give performances that showcase why they are able to commit such depth to their song lyrics, their passion for music happens onto the big screen and in the process it creates an exemplary film that will reach into one's soul and evoke response emotionally.Upon seeing the film for the first time, I realized it will probably remain in heavy rotation as far as my collection goes. I want to encourage anyone reading this post to pick up the film if you want to get away from the current Hollywood trend in film...this takes an entirely new direction using classic Yakuza film elements and how can you go wrong with a cameo from Ryo Ishibashi of Takashi Miike's \"Audition\" and \"Suicide Club\" fame?Man..I just can't say enough about this film, but I'll stop here.10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c3ef1c441fe4769bc0d786bb844602b", "input": "Review: I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a932a50ae2d844a7be07c8b1c07e4204", "input": "Review: I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like \"lame plot\" and \"it's much cruder than the show.\" Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67de3dd37ee94791acbbf35cb772e44c", "input": "Review: This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1bcb611afce48e1ad51ce839d191ff2", "input": "Review: This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-18bae7cef68a477a8d6cc6d18d011dbb", "input": "Review: This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: \"Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does...\" Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk. The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:\"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it...\" ...and I ended up just loving it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1dfc6e3e5a3c4fe8a510f515695c5018", "input": "Review: A French film Ester Williams would love. But the synchronized swimming was only a hook for the story of three girls in a Paris exurbia finding themselves. No question where Sciamma's sympathies lie as all the boys are depicted as \"animaux\" but actually only the 3 girls are in focus, and for the entire time, with the few adults and the other adolescents being mostly in the background. Marie is a stick of a girl, unattractive, but determined. She wants to be a swimmer and forces herself on Floriane ( a Renascence quality beauty per one reviewer) and she is also a friend of convenience to Anna: not unattractive, but for her, the time of her body's perfection was short, and now she is an adolescent in a women's body. What ensues is a journey to self-realization without a road map but there is a glumness about the three that is un-natural: where is the gaiety and mindless chatter of youth? While the dénouement was breath taking, with Floriane's self-absorption beautifully portrayed, as well as the equally beautiful union of Marie and Anne, it all seemed abstract, Sciamma's puppets. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d459b46a365414ab6e9c84a5d19e56e", "input": "Review: This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23f9160352b64d8cae7019ec16ac2adb", "input": "Review: FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-242f43efd726453da93a1542a4b61351", "input": "Review: According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket. Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6df5eabe96af4bfaa9638b099b5c546b", "input": "Review: Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the \"Walking with Dinosuars\" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.I also think this weakens the great \"Walking with Dinosuars\" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-196a8027b04c4d8fa32cf66b01e6690d", "input": "Review: Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' \"Greedy\"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f61040ca1ce420da3485c7376976950", "input": "Review: This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a39027385314ddfb8874e110acd16b2", "input": "Review: I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d86f5481b98480f8de5a7654534fe89", "input": "Review: This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be \"saved\" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had \"proven\" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33417d273d844812aadeb1af9b0ae55b", "input": "Review: \"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.This said-to-be follow-up to \"The Thirteenth Guest\" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f18c42fe8204331b6452ee322bddfa0", "input": "Review: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into \"that sort of thing,\" I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only \"unifying\" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the \"authorities\" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the \"story\" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word \"Pollack\" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as \"Pollack.\" And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3141c90dc374d6cbfb8d81787978000", "input": "Review: It's interesting to see what the director tried to do with this film. But the problem is that it's not very good. There was nothing really original in the film and while the plot was well presented, the main characters were all a bit to shallow and you didn't bother for any of them.Rather bland (and sometimes downright bad) photo leaves a bit to be desired but I guess you can't expect to much from people who are just doing a low budget film for the heck of it. It's unfair to review the film and compare it to other high-budget films. But alas, that is what one must do. On its own, it's not very good. And compared to others, it's still not very good. But it is not without its good points! I liked the plot. It was built up rather nicely and tied together well at the end. Sometimes in the really dark scenes, it managed to build up a creepy feeling as well.However in the end the film fails to impress. The characters are pretty much non-existent and we don't care for any of them. Any of them might die, but it's possible to pinpoint the final \"survivor\" from very early on. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb371ddd5c6d4678936efb36eb803495", "input": "Review: This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:(Singing at the very beginning credits);(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,(CROW SINGING)BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-49d797a3b4f5449a8acf9f2863338018", "input": "Review: A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United StatesJust CauseStarring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d920406e30e4ba8876bffdb34ef7b98", "input": "Review: This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"11 de Setembro\" (\"September 11\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f6173a516114dceb274c231e70065b5", "input": "Review: I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to \"Annie Hall\" or \"Manhattan\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fc014cdafce46368df7498ab17e8098", "input": "Review: honestly, if anyone has a brain, there's not 1 positive thingto say about this movie what so ever. I lost my $1 renting this. I'd rather laugh at Will Smith saying \"If you got a dream, you got to protect it\". all the actors must've been bored or had no fame at the time. even Matthew Mc Conahay *however you spell it* was better then all the actors in this movie, when he played a psycho in Texas Chainsaw 4. If you see this movie, and have anything good to say, you IQ, must be extremely low, with such bad taste in movies, it hurts. Thank YOU...and the TRUTH, has been spoken!Save yourself from the misery. Get Devil's Rejects, now that's a classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8f7d915b0934573bcc78a9e8ce5c83e", "input": "Review: I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b5879d1b0e04dad80b66dee15aacb48", "input": "Review: be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these \"jokes\" were just silly.This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6906d2e0d2d545fb9bafd7c4e1ce5857", "input": "Review: i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a162b453c54e49ff847e1b3f967daafb", "input": "Review: This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think \"Police Academy 7\" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.If only I could get my 90 minutes back... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ff2f745d2c24c5d9e2adee6621b8814", "input": "Review: This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. …making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42e08b9765cc49c6befc581aead47c7e", "input": "Review: Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever \"really\" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! It is one thing to rent a \"bad\" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be \"funny\" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of \"The Forsaken\" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The \"original\" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-237489b7fabe4b69b4439e0e4b46f518", "input": "Review: To bad for this fine film that it had to be released the same year as Braveheart. Though it is a very different kind of film, the conflict between Scottish commoners and English nobility is front and center here as well. Roughly 400 years had passed between the time Braveheart took place and Rob Roy was set, but some things never seemed to change. Scottland is still run by English nobles, and the highlanders never can seem to catch a break when dealing with them. Rob Roy is handsomely done, but not the grand epic that Braveheart was. There are no large-scale battles, and the conflict here is more between individuals. And helpfully so not all Englishmen are portrayed as evil this time. Rob Roy is simply a film about those with honor, and those who are truly evil.Liam Neeson plays the title character Rob Roy MacGregor. He is the leader of the MacGregor clan and his basic function is to tend to and protect the cattle of the local nobleman of record known as the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt). Things look pretty rough for the MacGregor clan as winter is approaching, and there seems to be a lack of food for everyone. Rob Roy puts together a plan to borrow 1000 pounds from the Marquis and purchase some cattle of his own. He would then sell them off for a higher price and use the money to improve the general well-being of his community. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? Problems arise when two cronies of the Marquis steal the money for themselves. One of them, known as Archibald Cunningham, is perhaps the most evil character ever put on film. Played wonderfully by Tim Roth, this man is a penniless would-be noble who has been sent to live with the Marquis by his mother. This man is disgustingly effeminate, rude, heartless, and very dangerous with a sword. He fathers a child with a hand maiden and refuses to own up to the responsibility. He rapes Macgregor's wife and burns him out of his home. This guy is truly as rotten as movie characters come. Along with another crony of the Marquis (Brian Cox) Cunningham steals the money and uses it to settle his own debts. Though it is painfully obvious to most people what happened, the Marquis still holds MacGregor to the debt. This sets up conflict that will take many lives and challenge the strengths of a man simply fighting to hold on to his dignity.Spoilers ahead!!!!!Luckily for the MacGregor's, a Duke who is no friend to the Marquis sets up a final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham to resolve the conflict one and for all. This sword fight has been considered by many to be one of the best ever filmed. Cunningham is thought by many to be a sure winner with his speed and grace. And for most of the fight, it looks like these attributes will win out. Just when it looks like Rob Roy is finished, he turns the tables in a shockingly grotesque manner. The first time you see what happens, you will probably be as shocked as Cunningham! Rob Roy is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and perfectly paced. The score is quite memorable, too. The casting choices seem to have worked out as Jessica Lange, who might seem to be out of her element, actually turns in one of the strongest performances as Mary MacGregor. The film is violent, but there isn't too much gore. It is a lusty picture full of deviant behavior, however. The nobility are largely played as being amoral and sleazy. The film has no obvious flaws, thus it gets 10 of 10 stars.The Hound. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-abbc4d65b59d49eda8fc9214ff318669", "input": "Review: .......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-342a32b9e0b74b34ad501a9df93af98f", "input": "Review: i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dc2c8eff3a84319b528b309c127984f", "input": "Review: The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became \"flat\" as in a soap opera. If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like \"do you believe in god?\", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c357beadb5d545cfbe311e92da496237", "input": "Review: Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.\"Wilder Napalm\" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics. Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire! Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. \"Wilder Napalm\" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.Give this one a look... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ba7d93392054ed5829deb3b9eac23b2", "input": "Review: A lot of people unfairly sh!t on this series but several of the Guinea Pig videos are fairly entertaining. Devil's Experiment in particular has some really fantastic effects work--not just the infamous eyeball scene but also a very realistic skin slice on the foot and a hand breaking with a sledgehammer are very realistic--especially for the video's vintage and low-budget.Let me start at the beginning now for those who don't know: This film is an \"extreme\" torture/fake snuff film that surfaced in Japan in the mid-80s. It's plot as it stands is simple: A young girl is held by a few men and forced to undergo a series of brutal tortures to see where her breaking point is. This entails brutal violence--all effectively realistic effects including the ones mentioned in the last paragraph as well as a painful looking application of hot oil to the captive girl's arm and placing of maggots in the subsequent flaky wound.The least effective sequences are at the very beginning of the video and consist of an unconvincing slap session where three men take turns slapping the hell out of the girl as her head falls about and a second sequence where the three men take turns kicking the girl and pushing her to the ground. These two scenes are obviously staged and detract from the realism of the rest of the proceedings.The actress who plays the victim of the \"experiment\" is pretty convincing at being in pain and takes a good amount of abuse and rough stuff on camera. Her reactions as she has headphones strapped to her head and loud noises are played for hours on end are chilling. Some of the other abuse she takes is being strung up in a net from a tree during the only times she is given a rest. Also there is a disturbing scene where the giggling captors through guts at her and one other disgustingly sleazy scene where she is spun in an office chair and forced to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels till she pukes.If you haven't seen this series I hope I have helped you decide whether or not you want to give this episode a shot. 8.5/10 for Devil's Experiment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b901132a58d49a98e0601e35a27d57b", "input": "Review: How viewers react to this new \"adaption\" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards \"special effects\" being the first and last word in how \"good\" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is...\"We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too.\"2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been \"born bad\". No, instead, this \"doctor\" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their \"insomnia\" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies \"some houses are just born bad\", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first \"victim\" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's \"history\")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no \"companion\", and there was no nursery. There was also no \"Grace\" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word \"house\" for \"movie\"!): \"This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!\" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6464ba2dcc93467c845f61936baa1898", "input": "Review: For those who think of Dame May Witty as the kindly, slightly batty, old lady from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, this movie requires an adjustment. Here, she's anything but kindly or batty. Instead, her son, George Macready is the loony one. Just don't give him a knife, otherwise his eyes light up and no furniture cushion in the house is safe. Now we know what he has in mind for the trapped Nina Foch if he can just get out from under Mother's domineering hand.Really tight little woman-in-danger film that keeps the suspense on high throughout. The script never strays from Foch's dilemma. She's held prisoner in a big old Gothic house on the edge of an angry sea. They're going to kill her, but why. Her predicament makes no sense. The tension mounts as she tries one escape ploy after another, but even strangers seem against her. We begin to feel her helplessness and mounting paranoia as the world turns away from her.Director Joseph H. Lewis took a big step toward cult status with this film and understandably so. Then too, watch Foch run subtly through a gamut of emotions without once going over the top. Witty too shines as a really intimidating matriarch who knows what she wants and how to get it if she can just keep her wacko son in line. My one reservation is the climax which seems too contrived considering the timing of the events. Nonetheless, it's a good, nerve-wracking way to spend a little over an hour, courtesy Columbia studios. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b63f80c723b142aeaf8b56686cea6eb0", "input": "Review: This movie was pretty absurd. There was a FEW funny parts. Its goes right in to the bin of movies in my memory where I think, \"Hmm.....that movie had a few funny parts, but overall, pretty ridiculous plot (or lack of).\"I thought it seemed like Ben was trying a little too hard to be a cooky funny guy. And I didn't understand how he was a self made multi-millionaire and still such an idiot. Anyways, I like Ben Affleck. He makes some crap, but hey, I can forgive him. I mean, I liked Jersey Girl, I didn't think Gigli was all his fault, I like him overall. I guess he's kinda like the kid you feel sorry for cuz he just can't seem to get it right.My advice would be to avoid this flick. It didn't really develop in to a workable plot and Catherine O'hara and Jimmy G. weren't used as well as they could have been. They deserved better. Overall, this movie is NOT Home Alone, it's NOT A Christmas Story, its NOT Christmas Vacation or any of the other classics. Forever Forgettable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e783feb30e4e4cb0824350b455f46b5e", "input": "Review: First off, I would just like to say what a big fan of Bette Midler's I am. Stella is a very good movie with a wonderful cast (Bette Midler, John Goodman, Trini Alvarado, Stephen Collins, Marsha Mason) This is one of my favorite films of all time. It deals with a mother raising a child on her own, she goes through a lot of things that are out of her way to bring up her daughter Jenny played wonderfully by Trini Alvarado. This movie is very good and I suggest that you pick up a copy to watch it. Roger Ebert gave is 3 1/2 stars! And it deserved 4! WONDERFUL! I give it 4 out of 4! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9d18bf5d53347a6b6864663d1215aba", "input": "Review: Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc4d84f64b9e443aa8f4dbeef339de60", "input": "Review: An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's \"Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora\" (\"The Cameraman's Revenge\", or \"The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman\") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the \"Gay Dragonfly\" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a \"business trip\" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: \"Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie.\" He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that \"the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future…\" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles – it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e430cc1d38014705832f5dbaa491ea9b", "input": "Review: This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff .... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66d0ab247dec452ba356578b3aa1bae1", "input": "Review: I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1220535e825b40a1a0da8ed596d852ba", "input": "Review: I watched the Pie-lette last night and the word that comes to mind is \"original.\" It is a word not used much in TV as they all tend to copy whatever the other network is doing and you end up with seven nights of crime shows, unfunny comedies, and reality crap.The first thing that hit me like a brick was the presence of Jim Dale. Those not familiar with the British \"Carry On ...\" series or those who have not listened to a Harry Potter book, may not be familiar with Dale. I am not sure whether his presence as narrator adds or distracts. I will have to tune in more, but it does give the show a \"Harry Potter\" atmosphere. Maybe that's a good thing.Lee Pace (Infamous, The White Countess) has a gift. It never explains where he got it, but he can bring someone back from the dead for a minute. He teams with Chi McBride (\"Boston Public,\" Roll Bounce) to solve murders using this talent. Everything is fine and funny until he comes across a childhood love, Anna Friel (Goal! The Dream Begins, Timeline) and things really get complicated. He can't send her back and he can never touch her. Boy, would that make a relationship difficult.I will be tuning in to see where this series goes in the expectation that it will continue to entertain. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1d9629508b64a168775fee2553d1d67", "input": "Review: So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible \"Shrek\" might enjoy, but \"Wallace & Gromit\" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as \"Shrek.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7b6f38898bb477aad13ae80533f4247", "input": "Review: For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, \"Life\" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5fde0588d3f4d68b883b8b8cdb00c5a", "input": "Review: Before seeing this, I was put off by the subject matter, but this is not your average triumph over adversity story. Although this is technically about blind Tibetan kids climbing Mt. Everest, there is so much more to it. This movie shows the very strong, often contradictory personalities of two highly accomplished blind adults leading the children, Erik and Sabriye. Erik is an American blind mountain climber/athlete and Sabriye is a blind German academic who started a school in Lhasa Tibet. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but disagree on what will really build confidence in the kids. Erik wants them to reach the summit while Sabriye wants them to enjoy Erik as a role model and take pleasure in moment. The nuances are complicated and one walks away not really being sure who was right or if the whole climb was a mistake or a great idea. The most profound scenes are with the Tibetan children themselves and the hardships they faced before finding their way to the school. The most moving for me was the story of Tashi, a frail teenager who grew up on the streets after his parents abandoned him. I could watch a whole movie on his life and was happy to learn that thanks to the school, he is now running a successful small business with some of his fellow students. If you liked Spellbound or Murderball, you will love this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b913d8403f542efb8d68d5febe80c00", "input": "Review: After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But \"the last great American Western\", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often. If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.3 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-711ef2d1fbb146bf8b16da16d7d59256", "input": "Review: Most Stoogephiles consider this to be the best Stooges short bar none, and they're right. Curly is a scream dressed up in drag as \"Senorita Cucaracha\", and Moe and Larry are in top form as \"Senor Mucho\" and \"Senor Gusto\", respectively. Christine McIntyre's beautiful operatic voice is given full rein--she actually was a trained opera singer--and it's wonderful. The great Gino Corrado is hilarious as a pompous Italian singer terrorized by the Stooges at a society party. Some truly funny gags, good direction and very tight editing make this rise to the very top of the Stooges' prolific output. What's even more amazing is that Curly was having severe health problems at the time, and in several of the shorts he made during this period, you can see that he is obviously ill; his timing is way off, he speaks very slowly and haltingly, and has trouble getting around. Fortunately, his health was in an upswing when he made this film, and it shows. Classic Stooge comedy, and enjoyed by even non-Stooge fans (I had a girlfriend who couldn't stand the Stooges, but even she laughed at this one). A must-see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-329894f5b4474243931c90992aa77e8c", "input": "Review: In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and \"King Arthur\", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's \"entertainment\" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get \"action\". Both movies were utter rubbish.Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be \"historical\", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the \"political map\" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that \"little was known\" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.I only wish I could vote 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c622ebcc4774297b8c4b726e67a1282", "input": "Review: As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get \"involved\" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of \"folk hero,\" but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d455686a96264854b2ae7ee9499237ff", "input": "Review: I disagree with previous comment about this movie. I think it was cute and fun and it carried a good message for young girls like my daughter. You don't have to dress like a cheap hooker to be cool. You can be smart and pretty and classy all at once.I think the cast was good and the story was fine for the target audience. All-in-all my wife, daughter (10) and I each thought it was a good movie. I certainly recommend it. It also has encouraged my daughter to start reading the original Nancy Drew mysteries which I am sure she will love much as I loved the Hardy Boys. It was a struggle to get her to sleep tonight because she wanted to start reading right away. I can't think of a better outcome for that movie than rekindling interest in that classic series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00ab9caaaba34a90bd0aa258857bf33c", "input": "Review: This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6437abce988545309e5c2f536b6eb5b3", "input": "Review: You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dfe5f33439104361b1807a4fddad10bd", "input": "Review: \"That '70s Show\" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes \"you son of a bitch!\", and when Kelso yells \"burn!\", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1670d40f477641f79a52021ad68f8f23", "input": "Review: The Fallen Ones starts with archaeologist Matt Fletcher (Casper Van Dien) in the desert discovering the mummified remains of a 42 foot tall giant, now there's something you don't see everyday. Matt is working for property developer Morton (Robert Wagner) who wants to build a holiday resort on the land & he calls in fellow archaeologist Angela (Kristen Miller) for reasons I'm unsure of. Anyway they both try to figure out what they've got on they're hands when some of the team go missing, Morton calls in security guy Ammon (Navid Negahban) to handle the situation. Meanwhile ancient text translator the Rabbi Eli Schmidtt (Tom Bosley) translates some ancient text (as he would) & is shocked to learn of a evil prophecy in which these giants will rise up & take over the world for the Fallen One, or something like that. It's up to Matt to save the day & the whole planet...Written & directed by Kevin VanHook, who also has a small role in the film as the ancient warrior leader at the start, I personally thought The Fallen Ones was a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are so many things that are just plain bad about The Fallen Ones both on a technical & conceptual level, the script doesn't make a whole lot of sense & it doesn't really get going until the final 20 odd minutes by which time I had almost lost the will to live. The character's are awful & as clichéd as you like, the dialogue is bad as in very, very bad & the entire film is predictable, I mean it's not going to come as a surprise that Casper Van Dien is going to save the day is it? It's not a huge surprise that the mummified giant is going to come back to life either so why wait until over an hour into the film when most of the audience will be in some sort of comatose state. This is bad, very bad. You have been warned.Director VanHook doesn't impress, the fight scenes are absolutely awful & why dress your bad guys up in a horrible shade of purple? They look naff. To give it a bit of credit the special effects on the giant Mummy itself are actually good although there's not that many of them since he doesn't make an appearance for over an hour, there are also some normal sized Mummy's that look to have come straight from the set of The Mummy (1999), unfortunately these aren't used to any great effect & in fact are wasted as some comic relief. The mechanical Mummy was a pretty good idea but looked silly & there is no way on Earth that all those people inside could work in sync with each other to operate it, actually the more I think about the more ridiculous the idea is. Forget about any scares, tension or atmosphere & don't even think about any gore or violence because there isn't any.Technically The Fallen Ones isn't anything special & apart from the impressive giant Mummy effects there's little her to get excited about. The ghost CGI & water effects are terrible, it was made-for-TV & it's shows. The acting was poor, Wagner looks embarrassed & this is probably the only thing the likes of Dien & Bosley can get these days.The Fallen Ones is a bad film, there's no two ways about it as far as I'm concerned. Not recommended on any level or in any way, one to avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1bdd83751a6447f88a8feae867170403", "input": "Review: \"Father is still away on business\" was headline of an review after \"Promise Me This\" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in \"Life Is A Miracle\". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8044a2bccd814004be5e41438eb858da", "input": "Review: I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a77f2751ffc414aadf4de9eaa23b4e3", "input": "Review: If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the \"screen consummation\" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4ca4ba8ae8142b4beaea79cc3381d0b", "input": "Review: This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb5cdc2f5f6f4cbbbab2fc10a028b6bd", "input": "Review: Well, Tenko is without doubt the best British television show ever, the performances, the directing, the casting, the suspense, the drama..... everything is fantastic about it.Although the show fell a little later in its final season, this ending movie picked up the threads nicely and wove a superb story for fans of the show and newbies. I cannot recommend this movie more, find it and watch it. But I do advise watching the series first, as the first 2 seasons are even better than this fantastic movie.An obvious (10/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e53c6563dad47d0925610fa6eff16fb", "input": "Review: ******* SPOILER! ********i saw this gr8 film a few years back, its a lovely story about a young fella who wants to drink his mothers milk at the breast but she thinks he is to old for it. he ends up lusting after another ladies breasts and ends up in competition with his brother who fancies her. throw in a jealous husband of this woman who cannot get \"aroused\" and you have a cheeky yet warm story about love, friendship and lovely pairs of jugs heheits brilliantdont be put off by sub-tit-les hehe! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b6aea700bac416e84e4509c2eadf2f9", "input": "Review: This is truly one from the \"Golden Age\" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next. All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9d5888556c3450db2ca8b091945da99", "input": "Review: What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many \"song\" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a \"war is hell\" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42bb0ec4df14408db6b89a4b08a8cc76", "input": "Review: This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched \"Surface to Air\" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b22b591a534461d81c8528273eb01ef", "input": "Review: Man, I really love the new DVD that Universal put out. I've never seen THE SENTINEL look this good since I had to put up with crappy, grainy VHS tapes for years. Unfortunately there are no extras beyond a trailer that looks pretty worse for wear. And AVOID the Goodtimes DVD at all costs. It sucks.Anyway, troubled fashion model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into haunted NYC brownstone, only it's more than just haunted. It's also a portal to hell and the Vatican keeps an old blind priest (John Carradine) to keep watch over it and make sure the devils and arch-angels don't escape. This has an all star cast full of old-timey actors like Ava Gardner, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer etc... as well as cameos of upcoming 80s stars including Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum (who's voice was mysteriously overdubbed) and Tom Berenger. And you won't even recognize Jerry Orbach from LAW & ORDER. I had to do a double-take when I didn't quite place where I'd seen him before.Nice gore scenes of Alison slicing the eye and nose off her dead father's rotting corpse that's been possessed by the devil. And there's a neat ending where disfigured, deformed people try to haunt Alison into committing suicide so she won't be the next one to guard the portal. It seems Alison's troubled past makes her a prime candidate by the Vatican to become the next sentinel.An excellent, creepy 70s classic from director Michael Winner that shouldn't be missed. I also recommended it for those who want something a little more imaginative beyond the usual stupid teenager slashers and horror comedy.7 out of 10- Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00fff91be91741f5b7f307a3de1ca319", "input": "Review: Hollywood now has officially gone too far and I really hope that this travesty of a motion picture creates a genuine backlash against their crap machines, in spite of the good box office returns. If you are an industry person reading our comments looking for hints on what to do next, STOP. Stop making our TV shows into these repellent, stupid, money grubbing waste of time movies that suck. By doing so you are proving one thing: Hollywood is out of ideas, and going to see the movies they churn out only perpetuates the cycle of disgust. What's next -- You guys gonna go & ruin The Bionic Man??The film is just plain wrong, and manages to get the most stupid, simple fact of the show totally incorrect by forgetting (or ignoring) that Tom Wopat & John Schneider's Bo & Luke Duke were *REFORMED* moonshiners. They had been busted, learned their lesson, gone straight, and were there to help people and be good neighbors who just happened to shoot dynamite tipped arrows from hunting bows & drive like Steve McQueen. Denver Pyle's Uncle Jessie was also the moral center of the family, always insisting that the Boys do good, even at their own expense or embarrassment while he made sandwiches and coffee for when the chores were done. They always did the right thing and had a sort of earnest naiveté about them that was quite appealing. We wanted to be more like them than we were, sorta. My favorite gimmick from the show was how they always buckled their seat belts before roaring off, which was apparently too moral for this film.By transforming the Duke family into a pack of leering, wisecracking, criminally minded, redneck baiting, misogynistic losers the movie has no moral standpoint, where the show was all about how honest or incorruptible the Dukes were -- Are the Duke boys in this movie supposed to come off as good guys? I wanted to punch them both in the nose. They seem to have a lot of free time on their hands that could be spent doing chores back at the farm and end up pursuing less than noble ends, if not acting like a pair of 14 year old boys who haven't grown up. There should be no marijuana use, no gawking at buxom, nubile coeds & their breasts, no shenanigans involving the Brothers in da Hood. All of it looks like the work of a marketing consultant who took a poll at the mall of what 14 year old boys like to see in movies. The problem being that 14 year old boys cannot possibly remember the show, IMHO shouldn't be seeing this movie either, and the parents who might feel nostalgia for the show will be disgusted by what the writers, director & producers did to our collective memories just to part us from our money, which is exactly how I feel. What were they thinking???And boy did they *EVER* get Daisy wrong. Jessica Simpson all dolled up like a Pamela Anderson mall slut may be the only reason for anyone to see this disgrace, but you can service your needs just fine downloading some promotional stills of her, printing them up & pinning them to the wall in a restroom. She is hardly in the film at all (which is the movie's only saving grace), and the ten minutes or so they used her was STILL excessive. Catherine Bach's Daisy may have had the same kind of shorts, and long legs that make people feel funny just looking at her, but the Daisy she played was a *PERSON*. The pratfalls she elicited by simply being who she was had an almost natural ring to it. She remains one of the most outrageously sexy pop culture icons ever created but there was somebody at home. And most importantly she was a sweet, caring person who couldn't help it if the guys went Ga Ga over her.By contrast, Jessica Simpson appears phony, contrived, made up, costumed, posed, aloof, bored, out of place, and I don't think she even looks that great in the outfit. She doesn't look like a person but a plot device, conjured up during a deal with someone representing her agent. Ms. Simpson would be well advised to fire that person immediately and pretend like the whole thing never even happened. Whatever the joke was, she isn't in on it and is disgracefully exploited for T&A. If that's all she wants from her career, executive produce the sequel if only to ensure yourself enough screen time at least, because this effort was just pathetic.The bottom line is SKIP IT. For the cost of two tickets and a Slurpee to go you can pick up one of Warner Bros. excellent box set collections of the original shows on DVD and the entire family can watch them together. That was why it worked. The only real purpose I can see in the film might be it's future use as an interrogation tool at Guantanamo Bay. Twenty minutes of this & they'll be singing a choir.1/10, and I mean it. And STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIONIC MAN, you schnooks. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f519bb1206814e578046c1f03674fa64", "input": "Review: First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f075c10aa854065978ea0bbf15e78ee", "input": "Review: This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e3c407e0a0e4717afcc7cd855cc5ae4", "input": "Review: I can't stand it when people go see a movie when they know they won't like it. My mom likes violent movies, so why did she see it? She rated it just to bring down the rating. So I know that's why it didn't have a higher rating. I give it a 6/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d43e9c6f43b9470396843c85e7bb8c1e", "input": "Review: OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bba6ed06ec6945db9bac061166ecfb7e", "input": "Review: The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none ! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e1f8309165b4b9aaa4f65fdae8f4b41", "input": "Review: I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f509c64ad6b94f38b7517533a666c64f", "input": "Review: The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John \"Bud\" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47cb863aecd5478ab903f693a94f2c1b", "input": "Review: The first of the official Ghibli films, Laputa is most similar to its predecessor Nausicaa, but whereas Nausicaa was a SF epic, this is more of an action comedy-adventure with a fairly weak SF premise.For the first half hour of the movie I thought I was going to love it. Once again you find yourself in awe of Miyazaki's attention to detail, and his ability to conjure up an imaginary world in meticulous, beautiful perfection. The animation, though still not in the league of the later Ghibli films, is a little better than in Nausicaa.I mentioned in my review of Nausicaa that one character is drawn in a more 'Lupinesque' anime style. Here there are a whole bunch of them: the pirates. They provide the comic element in the film, though quite why it needs a comic element I'm not sure. There was nothing funny about Nausicaa, and I think it was better off for it. Still. having said that, Dola, the pirate leader, is easily the most memorable character in the film (even if she's basically a female Long John Silver. Don't be surprised if you're reminded of 'Treasure Planet' at times) and is well voiced by Cloris Leachman in the American dub.The English voice cast acquit themselves well for the most part, actually. However something started going pear-shaped for me about this movie by about the halfway mark. I think the best way that I could describe it is that the characters get swallowed up by the vast scope of the story. I'll come back to that later.There is so much to admire about Laputa, and so many people obviously love it, that I almost feel mean for only giving it 8 out of 10, but for me the operative word here is 'admire'. It was more impressive than personally affecting, and at over two hours it just started to drag.The crucial thing for me was this: I really found that I didn't care much about any of the characters. Disney would have taken the care to develop the characters, make you really fall for them, rather than leave them as relatively two-dimensional pieces to be moved around while you gawked at the amazing vistas in the movie. Even that would have been tolerable if there was some hard SF in the story to make up for it, but it was basically a lot of gobledegook about Princesses and magic crystals. That's where Laputa falls down as far as I'm concerned, and that's what holds it back from being a potential 10 out of 10 movie. Having said that, it must be admitted that Miyazaki was leagues ahead of Disney in general in 1986, when you consider that their movie of the same year was the pretty dire 'Great Mouse Detective'.Laputa is a good film in some ways an amazing film, and you should definitely see it, but I do feel it's over-rated. I definitely prefer the earlier 'Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind'.BTW, if you manage to watch them in chronological order, watch for the fox-squirrel from Nausicaa popping up briefly in Laputa. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5ea8223e1374c6588de5a08f8ababb5", "input": "Review: This film came out 12 years years ago, and was a revelation even for people who knew something of the drag scene in New York. The textbooks on drag performance say nothing of these vogueing houses. Anthony Slide's 'Great Pretenders' says nothing. Julian Fleisher's \"The Drag Queens of New York: An Illustrated Field Guide\" with its flow chart of influence that pulls together Julian Eltinge, Minette, the Warhol queens, and the 90s club scene - and postdates the film - ignores the houses completely. Even Laurence Senelick's \"The Changing Room\" - the closest thing that we have to a definitive book on drag performance rushes quickly past the film and does not give the background information that one would have expected from it.I understand from the film itself,and various articles I found on the web that this house system goes back decades. The major film performance by a house member prior to 1990 seems to be Chrystal La Beija in \"The Queen\", 1968. The historical context is the biggest missing part of \"Paris is Burning\".The film is valuable because it focuses on a scene otherwise being ignored. It is a valuable snapshot of life in 1989. The unfortunate fact that Venus Xtravaganza was murdered during filming provides a very dramatic ending, but this is not the only film about transsexuals to include a real-life murder. As we now know, Dorian Corey had a mummified corpse in her literal closet, but this did not come out until three years later.Of historical importance, but we still need someone to do either a book or a documentary film that provides more context. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ba57fadc2b84023bfe325cc7956ed2f", "input": "Review: It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55d9af67a06a4b21a031d033cbd07136", "input": "Review: Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68ef4cfb5b154e0dadbfafd2578fd0ea", "input": "Review: Yeah, I \"get\" Pasolini and his milieu, but at the same time, I feel his \"Decameron\" is largely overrated, and more than a little disturbing. Overrated because the supposed \"realism\" he introduces (milling crowds, crumbling architecture, etc.) are mooted by the absurd and downright goofy way that the characters behave. In the pursuit of realism, Pasolini utilized many non-actors, but their deer-in-the-headlights stares and painfully awkward line delivery gives the whole a terribly off-kilter and inconsistent feel. And frankly -- many of the toothless, misshapenly-featured people are painful to look at.And Pasolini's \"Decameron\" is disturbing (to me at least) because of the casual and prevalent homosexual content. Not because I'm prudish or homophobic (I'm neither) but because the emphasis that Pasolini places upon homoerotic images and situations is contrary to the neo-realism he otherwise espouses, so it comes off as gratuitous and forced. One can almost hear him say \"Ooh--I've got to stick a cute, naked boy in this scene!\" At times it seems that Pasolini is trying to play up the homosexual angle to thumb his nose at critics, and at other times because he enjoys that aspect himself, regardless of what his audience might prefer.The disjointedness of the 9 or 10 different stories in Pasolini's \"Decameron\" struck me as being a failing of Pasolini as a storyteller, rather than being an aspect of neo-realism. He seems to get bored with each story and so he wraps them up rather unconvincingly and with little conviction. Even the Pasolini's final line of dialog in the film, which some people seem to find pithy (\"Why create a work of art when dreaming about it is so much sweeter?\") -- to me, it just makes me wonder why Pasolini would bother making a film if he felt this way? In my opinion, a far better-crafted film (and with MORE homosexual content) is Fellini's \"Satyricon\". It is also full of bizarre-looking people and absurd situations, but it succeeds because of its pacing, direction and strong storytelling whereas \"Decameron\" fails by those same elements. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b63a89f9c30141e78e8008524bf8e255", "input": "Review: EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1c9e074adba442d9ea02dbdc45dd648", "input": "Review: Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, \"Beauty and the Beast\". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, \"Belle's Magical World\", is definitely inferior.The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is \"The Perfect Word\", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is \"Fifi's Folly\", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with \"The Broken Wing\". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds! The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third \"Beauty and the Beast\" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called \"Mrs. Potts's Party\", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about \"Belle's Magical World\" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in \"Belle's Magical World\" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In \"The Perfect Word\", the way Belle says to the Beast, \"You're acting rude... and foolish!\" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure \"Belle's Magical World\" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62e134a42bb441a7b475cb1d17d3af27", "input": "Review: Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d7f7d610fc64e47aa64078951d99ddf", "input": "Review: This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that \"baiting the trap\"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said \"excuse me. I have to go kill someone\" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e53ddec3b817450fa1383c3385ff97bc", "input": "Review: - After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cb78a23f71341a6b192efc83d85394d", "input": "Review: I thought the original of this film was quaint and charming as well as having me sitting on the edge of my seat trying to figure it out.Since I had already seen the original, when I saw this on Sci Fi Channel- I don't know if this remake was deliberately made for Sci Fi - I knew what it was within the first few minutes. Since I like Richard Burgi as a character actor, I wanted to see how he would pull it off.The writers/producers etc, modernized the film a bit by trying to explain the plight of the \"aliens\" (They could no longer reproduce their own kind and needed help) using the same pseudo science that has been crammed in our ears in the 90's. Maybe it added a bit of polish to the film, or not.This film. Film? This production takes on a more sinister edge than the original did- The original ended with a confrontation between the young woman and the alien and an understanding of sorts took place, although no resolution of the Alien's problem.I sort of remember that in this remake, the woman became rather hostile towards the Burgi/Alien- I think it could have ended better. But the ending is just the ending, and the yarn is a swell yarn, being of the basic 1958 Science Fiction Pulp Stock. Many great science fiction stories were written in the 50's and some of them even made it to film.This is a swell thing to watch on like a rainy day or something. I rate it highly cos of all the remakes of old 50's Sci Fi, this one came off well. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit.But if anyone really wants to see this story told WELL, I suggest the original 1958 version with Tom Tyron and Gloria Talbott, directed by Gene Fowler Jr. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6819c7817a1a426e8e2b3be06fd553f3", "input": "Review: I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song \"If I Could\". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e2104a2da1248beb41263befe3046a0", "input": "Review: i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93534d39a55a4d72a8a38b9f78155dd8", "input": "Review: This is one of the funniest movies that I have seen this year. The people that made it must be so incredibly whacked and twisted. It is a beautiful thing. There were a lot of quality one-liners. This movie blew Uncle Sam out of the water (it was made by tha same people, i think) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8729a3d1b5442fea774f88ed26dda63", "input": "Review: Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f5b278d412b4b00836282d5617ed1a5", "input": "Review: Watching \"The Fox and the Child\" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.I laughed. I wept. I learned.This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6436ddacf29a4786bf02343b11dfe05f", "input": "Review: If you are a fan of Zorro, Indiana Jones, or action in general this is a must-see. Directed by Republic's ace team of William Witney and John English, and starring Reed Hadley as Don Diego/Zorro, this serial delivers! I won't bore you with the plot (who cares? less talking, more fighting); what really matters here is Hadley's superb interpretation of the character/s and the stunt work of Dale van Sickel and Yakima Canutt. ***STUNT SPOILERS FOLLOW ***You can see the influence this film had on Lucas and Spielberg -- Zorro gets caught in the original version of the Star Wars trash compactor in one chapter, trapped on a rope bridge a'la Temple of Doom in another, does a Raiders horse-to-coach transfer and even flees through a tunnel while the baddies knock over a huge water tank and flood the tunnel behind him, exactly as Mola Ram does to Indy in Temple of Doom. In addition to all this, the whip action is great as Zorro disarms villains, swings to safety, etc. with his trusty lash. Most of the sword work is fair to lame, except for chapter one, which features a terrific sword brawl in a cantina choreographed by sword/stunt legend Ralph Faulkner, who makes a rare screen appearance as the evil Rodriguez. This was the first serial I ever saw, on Matinée at the Bijou when I was a kid and I have been hooked on them ever since. Zorro's Fighting Legion delivers \"Z\" goods! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c32f1d55497343f6bbaa3751f1645cc4", "input": "Review: A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-633c266ca014452c9917e013bc37ce12", "input": "Review: Antonio Margheriti's \"Danza Macabra\" aka. \"Castle Of Blood\" of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's \"La Maschera Del Demonio\" (aka. \"Black Sunday\") of 1960 and Roger Corman's \"Pit And The Pendulum\" of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to \"Danza Macabra\" was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as \"Django\" (1966) and \"The Great Silence\" (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and \"Castle of Blood\" is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece. When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. \"Castle of Blood\" is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: \"Castle of Blood\" is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41e942280f2c43a48843b09a293b3f42", "input": "Review: I'm sure this was one of those \"WOAH!\" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6de08eba2c49468eafa69f2e40794b52", "input": "Review: I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? Do we need all the \"in-jokes\" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e05154386cff47148e789e0b857e0d99", "input": "Review: This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring. In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy \"Hasty Hare\"! :-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bd40e80257448d2a1477fcc89f6d0d9", "input": "Review: Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-574c5f20e13a4474be8d8bd75bd7f1f1", "input": "Review: OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-778fe551135641d3bc8ebba90097cf80", "input": "Review: We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8cbdb17680d942ddbc107f9af086865a", "input": "Review: Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a \"fish out of water\" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the \"fish\" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the \"in your face\" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43630c3a2e35490b82939bc50480f381", "input": "Review: I only wish that Return of the Jedi, have been directed by somebody else, I mean, there is far too much ewoks scenes, completely unnecessary. Besides this time our heroes look like different people: Princess Leia no longer fights with Solo, Luke looks boring, Darth Vader is not as evil as before, and Yoda just dies.But there are many extraordinary things going on this episode that i just can't hate it.SOME SPOILERS 1- Jabba the hut 2- The Sail Barge attack sequence. 3-The emperor (now that's evil) 4- The Speeders chase at the endor forest. 5-The Last Battle. 6-The Dark side seduction scene. 7-The return of Anakin to the good side of the force. 8- And the last celebration.Some of those are so good that they can bring tears to your eyes. If some scenes would have been cut, and another director was hired, this would have been as perfect as episode 4 and 5, but still is extraordinary. 9 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de548c7115184c29b72809df54c6d79d", "input": "Review: Ok, so it's not a masterpiece like the Godfather, but it doesn't have to be. The only purpose this movie has is to make the viewer laugh several times. If it can make the viewer laugh a bunch of times, it has accomplished its purpose. I laughed out loud and left with a smile. I feel like I got my money's worth. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01bd942fa34d461096e7dcc7e6759084", "input": "Review: For me,this is one of the best movies i ever saw.Overcoming racism,struggling through life and proving himself he isn't just an ordinary \"cookie\" ,Carl Brashear is an amazing character to play ,who puts Cuba in his best light,best performance in his life.De Niro,who is a living legend gives THAT SOMETHING to the movie.Hated his character in movie,but he gives so much good acting to this film,great performance.And appearance of beautiful Charlize was and as always is a big plus for every movie. So if you haven't seen this movie i highly recommended for those who love bravery,greatness who seek inspiration.You must look this great drama. My Vote 9/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86468a10bd264b38bd923c050f39418b", "input": "Review: This \"film\" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still \"wants\" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the \"I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex. I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.Big Budget Action films: \"you so have to die\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e997ee8f9454da086ee8a3b68962199", "input": "Review: O my gosh... Just give me a minute to breath. This movie takes you on an awesome ride and doesn't let you go until the very last blow in your face ending. This is the the movie for fans of Stormriders and such. Legend of Zu was beautifully created, although I didn't like a few things, they used alot of stand ins. I wanted to see the real person fight but, oh well... a few small let downs,and I didn't really like it a lot until I watched it again, when you understand it more it totally kicks A**! I encourage anyone who ever wanted to see a true Asian movie, to see this movie. I give this movie one of my highest ratings.Go and see it when it comes out in America!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2cfd0fd74b5e4fcc9ba8e564f197d035", "input": "Review: I only saw it once. This happened in 1952, I was seven, the movie 13.We were so young... But I kept in mind, forever, the strong moments of Gunga's sacrifice.I realized that time how much a people can be hardly submitted and used by a foreign nation. Under these historical circumstances, in the movie, the personal relation of friendship, a kind of friendship that ignores itself, the one raised between people who share daily life, who see each other faces, who knows each other names, but belong to different worlds, can only make appears. Then, in the most critical moments a troubling question emerges: \"Whom are we, in first, supposed to be loyal?\", which People, family, motherland, the person you know close to you?. You do not have time to give a perfect answer, urgency is there, and it is for life or death. Gunga-Din gives his answer with sacrifice of himself. Somewhere, in a confuse manner, a problem remains unsolved, the emotion grows with the rhythm of the movie until somebody dies, just one life, nothing compared to so many other fictions or realities we can see today, because this death, this unique vanishing life I lived it, I shared with my child unconditional friendship. It was lived by the spectator I was. That day I loose Gunga-Din for ever. As I left behind, later, my pretty childhood, as I left from then so many worlds I lived in. I left all that for good and these lines are today a short visit I didn't expect to do this morning when getting up. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33a97b47f86646b0abd3b1be54d60295", "input": "Review: As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.Remember the \"strings\" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing \"Suspicious Minds\". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-670c3268ea7246469912a4814c5a8170", "input": "Review: Having seen \"Triumph of the Will,\" I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low \"standards\" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as \"bad.\" It would have to improve significantly to attain that status! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a158dd509b6a4b32836ed5537d25da6b", "input": "Review: Half the reviews were good so i took a chance for $10. Sure Priscilla Barnes had some sex talk but it wasn't much. The whole plot later that she may be the other actress mother & the documentary maker falling for the young woman is stretching it. Its not funny its not that raunchy its not much of anything but a waste of time. Boogie Nights was based on real people that were in the adult industry this is based on nothing that ever happened in the industry. It could have shocked with whats popular today in adult films mocking todays gonzo videos and that big orgy that they had 5 minutes to shoot what a joke a bigger orgy has been done bigger & better decades ago in the early 1970s. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-713de3a8c9f14b5fb829d2d7eb210bc0", "input": "Review: Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing \"caution to the wind\" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant \"reminders\" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some \"emotion\" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.Perennial \"old man\" Ian Wolfe assays the role of \"Mr. Atoz,\" the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-345f6e6f13974c1a8e7074d9b555b100", "input": "Review: Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: \"Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery\", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b2af89b099a4755a1a2e5002a7768ce", "input": "Review: Hardly the stuff dreams are made of is this pursuit of the brass ring by a naive hustler (JON VOIGT) and his lame con-man sidekick (DUSTIN Hoffman), soon to forge a friendship based on basic survival skills.A daring film for its time, and a foremost example of the kind of gritty landscape being explored in the more graphic films of the '60s. Symbolic of the \"end of innocence\" in American films, since it was the only X-rated film to win a Best Picture Oscar.JON VOIGT is the male hustler who comes to the big city expecting to find women an easy way to make money when they fight over his body, but soon finds the city is a cold place with no welcome mat for his ilk. Befriended by a lame con-man (DUSTIN Hoffman), he goes through a series of serio-comic adventures that leave him disillusioned and bitter, ready to leave the confines of a cold water flat for the sunshine promised in Florida, a land his friend \"Ratzo\" dreams of living in.But even in this final quest, the two are losers. John Schlesinger has directed with finesse from a brilliant script by Waldo Salt, and John Barry's haunting \"Midnight Cowboy\" theme adds to the poignant moments of search and desperation.Summing up: A true American classic honestly facing a tough subject and daring to show the underbelly of certain aspects of city life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7aebd84e9c6249dcac8a20f4ac5cd3ae", "input": "Review: The inspiring story of Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), a black man who grew up in poverty in Kentucky and then joined the US Navy, aspiring to be the first black Master Diver in Navy history. We are shown the series of struggles from boyhood on that Brashear has to overcome to make his dream come true (and then to keep it alive.) Not the least of the challenges was Master Diver Bill Sunday (Robert DeNiro), the head trainer at the diving school the Navy sends Brashear to, who is not especially sympathetic to Brashear's goals, but who ultimately becomes an unlikely friend and supporter.This is a good movie; fast paced and with a lot of action, although not an \"action\" pic in the normal sense of the word. There's a very human story here as well, and an interesting study of racism and the struggle to overcome it; there's also a sense of the struggle that took place in the 1960's between older and younger naval officers (the \"old navy\" vs the \"new navy.\") The performances are quite good - particularly Goodings'. I thought DeNiro was perhaps a bit over the top in his portrayal of Sunday (although, who knows, Sunday might well have been this extreme kind of loose cannon) and the portrayal of Sunday's wife Gwen (by Charlize Theron) also made me question whether these parts were \"jazzed up\" to provide entertainment value.A good movie, though. I never once wondered if it was worth tuning into.7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-375571db85ff426492a72248516c3db1", "input": "Review: I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her \"sexy\" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than \"Devil Wears Prada\" and more interesting than \"Superman\" a great comedy to go see with friends. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-19ca82852f0547588b0b24b1b6be65a9", "input": "Review: OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93db48bc5ade4915be27ef710b88ad4f", "input": "Review: While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47ffffe8e9554ac9a54a967217d14db9", "input": "Review: I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to \"Annie Hall\" or \"Manhattan\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-05786bfa371c41e7b82c0393cad8404f", "input": "Review: A stupid young man becomes obsessed with a woman--so obsessed that he loses perspective and common sense. An evil magician approaches him and informs him he can give him great wealth that he can use to win the lady's heart IF he agrees to give him anything he wants that's within their room. The dumb guy agrees and the magician steals the man's reflection out of the mirror--and bad things naturally occur as a result.If this film had been made just a decade later, I am sure I wouldn't have been so charitable in reviewing and scoring this film. After all, the film's plot is a bit vague in spots and the acting is, at times, a bit stilted. However, when you consider that in 1913 \"full-length\" films were rare--and often only 20 to 30 minutes long! Plus, the whole idea of a complex story like you get in this film is very unusual--as stories were very short and broadly acted. So, given the limitations of the time, this film is pretty good and is one of the earlier horror films known. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-77b3af6c07f5482d9ea3b2c006f73d37", "input": "Review: As I am no fan of almost any post-\"Desperate Living\" John Waters films, I warmed to \"Pecker\". After he emerged from the underground, Waters produced trash-lite versions of his earlier works (\"Cry Baby\", \"Polyester\", Hairspray\") that to die-hard fans looked and tasted like watered down liqueur. \"Pecker\", which doesn't attempt to regurgitate early successes, is a slight, quiet, humble commentary on the vagaries of celebrity and the pretentiousness of the art world. Waters clearly knows this subject well because he has also exhibited and sold (at ridiculous prices) some of the most amateurish pop art ever created that you couldn't imagine anyone being able to give away if it wasn't emblazoned with the Waters \"name\". Edward Furlong is fine as \"Pecker\" and Waters' non-histrionic style is at ease with the subject. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af16a2a9e13d4413940dce882ed14feb", "input": "Review: this movie has no plot, no character development, and no budget. it really sucks to put it in short terms. Since there is no development for the movie, it really can't even be looked as trying to be artistic or trying to make a statement against torture. Which leaves two other reasons to possibly watch it. To be shocked or to get off on it like a sick little freak. Well it falls short here too. The girl's reactions just seem dumb. it's extremely easy to tell that it's fake (honestly professional wrestling looks more realistic than the crap they try to get by with in this movie. They throw innards on her, but she's asleep for most of it, so it's just kinda dumb. The only really kind of worthwhile part is the end when they quickly cut from scene to scene just before the needle goes into her eye. But honestly the girl is extremely ugly and everything is incredibly fake, with the exception of the eye. if you want a good movie about torture, go watch Hostel and Hostel 2. Not only do they both contain realistic violence, but there is also an actual storyline that draws you in and makes you care about the people. Plus the tow movies really work on a deeper level considering themes like American fears of foreigners, issues of morality, testing how far a person can go, human instincts vs. civilization, and many other things. Plus they are carefully written and contain some good humor when the story isn't focused on the violence. These are much better choices over this piece of crap Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae7b1ed7711a4dc8a989e2d667716bc3", "input": "Review: Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-423ba65e54884179a946a59a014e10ed", "input": "Review: Just got through watching this version of \"Samhain\", and even though I still like it, it's nothing like the \"rough cut\" version I have. If you check the message board, you'll see an apology from the director for this cut down version, 79 minutes., and he says he had nothing to do with this R-rated trimmed down edit with a completely new screwed up ending. Christian really doesn't need to distant himself that much, because the basic gore elements still stand up, even though highly trimmed down. This is a damn shame, because this had the potential of being one of the goriest and best gore films in years. It still has the porn stars, and the inbreds, and some of the extreme gore can at least be partially seen. I'm just glad I have that \"rough cut\", because to me, it's a jewel for any gorehounds library. Christian Viel definitely has the skill and vision to deliver the goods, and hopefully his next project will be better produced. The idiots had a near classic in their hands, and screwed it up for everybody. \"Samhain\" may be one of the most controversial and mishandled horror movies ever, and too bad gorehounds didn't get to see what the director intended.********************************************* Just so you know what you missed, this is my review based upon the \"work print\" of SAMHAIN.The movie runs a little over 90 minutes and has no chapter stops. There is absolutely NO music soundtrack, and some of the scenes have no audio on the dialog, because I think they are meant to be looped in later. However, most of the movie does have audio with sound affects, and when an effect or scene is missing, a message appears as a cue for insertion when the movie is completed. It's exactly as it says, a \"Rough Cut\", BUT the only uncut version of \"Samhain\" you are ever likely to see. Reason, because the gore is extremely graphic, much more than even an NC-17 would allow. Yes there are a few porn stars, but they are just there for the killing, and to add a little sugar and spice. The story is pretty standard, American tourists on a vacation in Ireland and end up staying in a home in the middle of the woods. An area that is heavy on folklore, involving the ancient Druids and the celebration of Samhain, or as we call it Halloween. (spooky)The movie starts off with a HUGE dose of gore, as a camping couple is attacked by one of the local inbred mutants. This is a great gore scene, as the guy find his girl hanging from a cliff, with her crying for help. All he sees is her head, arms, and shoulders hanging in front of him and when he pulls her up, she has been completely sliced in two. This is what I would call EXTREME GORE, with entrails, blood, and severed limbs all over the place. We are in Herschell Gordon Lewis territory here folks, except the effects look much more realistic. I'm going to just skip the story, because it's your standard stalk and kill plot.The next gore scene is something to behold, as the boyfriend from the first killing is taken to a cave like location (TCM-2 stuff), and bound to a table. This geek then cuts all of his limbs off (off camera, with a cue to insert a scene), and then we see his torso on a barbecue pit, turning slowly over a fire, and the torso has a hard-on (if you can believe that). Yes, very bad taste, gross, gruesome, you find the right word, and it will probably fit too.Then later Jenna Jameson, her beautiful body and all, is cut from neck to crotch, and all her entrails are pulled out in graphic glee, and her blood drains into a pot. Yummy, a real turn on huh?But the best gore scene happens inside the house, and I have to admit, this is one of the best gore scenes I have seen. This guy (doesn't matter who) is caught from behind from a geek, and cut open at the ass hole. The geek then puts his hands in and rips out all the guys entrails, intestines, and what the hell ever else there is, right from his asshole. This goes on FOREVER, as the guy is screaming and more and more innards are pulled out laying all over the bathroom floor. This is so extreme, so over the top, that I found myself laughing all to hell. Obviously, you will NEVER EVER see this scene on a proper DVD, IMO, along with most of the other really extreme gore scenes.So, what to think of all of this. Well, first of all, even though I doubt this movie would ever be released in this totally uncut presentation, it makes this \"Rough Cut\" a rare jewel for gorehounds. Yes, it's a little difficult at first, with no soundtrack, a few scenes to still be inserted, and credits that have missing names all over the place. But that's what makes this so unique, and I wouldn't trade it for anything right now. Extreme gore, yes yes, extreme extreme gore. This makes \"Haute Tension\" look like a Disney movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-718469b7377143a0a24864fbfe48914e", "input": "Review: This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series\"Heartbeat\" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d4ee0de216a4df4ae39abb73a12065d", "input": "Review: Three scumbags get their just deserts after wasting their lives in greed, drugs, ego, and bad attitudes. Interesting and well done; this style of film always makes me wonder where reality leaves off and imagination takes over. Even though these folks were the scum of the earth I still found myself pitying them. They never really stood much of a chance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-159d0ce42c6248a18e27e8c2b1965191", "input": "Review: I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-406cfd62b1d24058855f7636db9a5040", "input": "Review: Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcf35772a6864734a19b562ffd21d5fc", "input": "Review: WWF Survivor Series 2001This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-692809abeb2243e48de934b94753a5a3", "input": "Review: \"The Lion King\" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries! 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d2a44c31d724bbd9a3b4aa44fdbc232", "input": "Review: Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a \"Day in the Life...\" Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. This movie was a total disaster. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7eea0638651e4a51a60b4414fae81f6d", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from \"The White Balloon\", \"The Mirror\" and \"The Circle\", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): Not Available Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4f2365552724dcda01708fbce15f0f3", "input": "Review: As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.Fooey.Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much. Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, \"Maybe I'm wrong.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2739e77f1d4f4aada2ef6e7508df101f", "input": "Review: This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or \"normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad0e9232162a466c95dd0b334b7f2fa5", "input": "Review: There is so much of worth in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin with praise. Let me begin by expressing my admiration for a perfect portrayal by Reese Witherspoon. That her performance stands out in the excellent cast is praise indeed. Robert Mulligan has seldom disappointed those of us who have admired his work. Every frame of The Man in the Moon is evidence of film making at its best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08c538738eb04beeaa95bcb6b74b5c61", "input": "Review: I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching \"dankness falls\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5686a2329c845a4b0836b704adcc3f6", "input": "Review: Featuring a few of Hammer's all-stars, this highly effective slice of British horror revolves around a house and the fates of it's previous tenants, whose stories are all told to a Scotland yard detective, in search of a missing actor.Story number one, which is probably the least impressive of the four, deals with a writer and his wife who've just moved in the house and plan to stay just for a short time so that he may write one of his horror novels. He creates a demented character named Dominic, who's a very creepy looking strangler, and soon finds himself going mad as he starts to seeing this beastly looking man everywhere he goes. After his wife convinces him to seek psychiatric help, a sub-plot is introduced which frankly, didn't really work for me. I won't spoil it for you.The next story (the best in my opinion) stars the wonderful Peter Cushing as Philip Grayson, a man who's moved into the home for his retirement years and soon makes his way to a nearby wax museum(that deals in the macabre) where he's very startled to find a wax figure that looks exactly like a woman from his past. Soon thereafter, an old friend(who also has a history with this woman) is in town for business and drops by to see him. The two men are in for a rude awakening as they soon discover that there was more to this woman than meets the eye.Story three stars one of my very favorites...Christopher Lee, who plays John Reid. After moving into the home with his peculiar daughter Jane, the nanny that he hires becomes awfully suspicious as to the way Reid suppresses his daughter. Well come to find out...if she knew what Lee did, she would have certainly understood.The final story is a rather light-hearted vampire tale that stars John Pertwee and Ingrid Pitt. After buying a cloak from a mysterious merchant, actor Paul Henderson finds himself turning into the very creature that he's portrayed several times in his career.Overall, the pacing and direction were very good, as was the most of the performances. There were nice Gothic touches here and there and an effective score to complement the ambiance. This one's a keeper, and comes highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f9ab5a4f8814bb2a1d54e1f6a12b994", "input": "Review: If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, \"no, don't do that!\", \"why are you so stupid\", \"look out!\", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-389c0c9cd1dc4dacacc70d83c57ff951", "input": "Review: I'll tell you a tale of the summer of 1994. A friend and I attended a Canada Day concert in Barrie, and it was a who's who of the top Canadian bands of the age. We got there about 4am, waited in line most of the morning, and when the doors opened at 9am, we were among the first inside the gates. We then waited and waited in the hot sun, slowly broiling but we didn't care, because the headliners were among our favourites. At one point, early in the afternoon, I sat down and dozed off with my back to the barrier. I was awakened to my shock and dismay by a shrieking girl wearing a Rheostatics t-shirt. This is the reason I have hated the Rheostatics to this day. There's nothing reasonable, nor taste-determined, nor really anything except their fandom. Snotty of me, isn't it? So, I, in my hatred of the band, have denied myself the delight that is Whale Music.Desmond Howl had it all. It's hard to say what he's lost, since he lives in a fantastic mansion wedged between the ocean and the mountains (the BC region where the movie was shot is breathtaking). The life most of us dream of is dismantled by dreams, phantoms, and his own past, until the day a teenaged criminal breaks in...and, trite as it sounds, breaks him out.Canadian cinema suffers from several problems. Generally, a lack of money, as well as an insufferable lack of asking for help (as if somehow the feature would cease to be Canadian) leads to lower production values than American or British films, and most people don't like to watch anything that sounds or looks like, well, not like an American film. Next, Canadian screenwriters often seem so caught up in being weird that they lose sight of how to tell a good story, and tell it well. Third, they seem to think that gratuitous nudity (often full-frontal) makes something artistic. I'm sure anyone who watches enough Canadian movies, especially late at night on the CBC, knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's almost like a \"don't do this\" handbook exists out there somewhere and Canadian film-makers threw it out a long time ago.In the 90s and 00s, however, some films (such as Bruce McDonald's work and the brilliant C.R.A.Z.Y.) have broken this mold, and managed to maintain what makes them Canadian, while holding onto watchable production values and great stories. Whale Music is such a film, on the surface. Deeper than just its Canadian-isms, it's a deeply moving story of a man who's lost his grip, through grief and excess, who is redeemed by music then by love. And that redeems even the Rheostatics. :) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdc1d69ec8e6441ea0d43df492b80b17", "input": "Review: Just got through watching this version of \"Samhain\", and even though I still like it, it's nothing like the \"rough cut\" version I have. If you check the message board, you'll see an apology from the director for this cut down version, 79 minutes., and he says he had nothing to do with this R-rated trimmed down edit with a completely new screwed up ending. Christian really doesn't need to distant himself that much, because the basic gore elements still stand up, even though highly trimmed down. This is a damn shame, because this had the potential of being one of the goriest and best gore films in years. It still has the porn stars, and the inbreds, and some of the extreme gore can at least be partially seen. I'm just glad I have that \"rough cut\", because to me, it's a jewel for any gorehounds library. Christian Viel definitely has the skill and vision to deliver the goods, and hopefully his next project will be better produced. The idiots had a near classic in their hands, and screwed it up for everybody. \"Samhain\" may be one of the most controversial and mishandled horror movies ever, and too bad gorehounds didn't get to see what the director intended.********************************************* Just so you know what you missed, this is my review based upon the \"work print\" of SAMHAIN.The movie runs a little over 90 minutes and has no chapter stops. There is absolutely NO music soundtrack, and some of the scenes have no audio on the dialog, because I think they are meant to be looped in later. However, most of the movie does have audio with sound affects, and when an effect or scene is missing, a message appears as a cue for insertion when the movie is completed. It's exactly as it says, a \"Rough Cut\", BUT the only uncut version of \"Samhain\" you are ever likely to see. Reason, because the gore is extremely graphic, much more than even an NC-17 would allow. Yes there are a few porn stars, but they are just there for the killing, and to add a little sugar and spice. The story is pretty standard, American tourists on a vacation in Ireland and end up staying in a home in the middle of the woods. An area that is heavy on folklore, involving the ancient Druids and the celebration of Samhain, or as we call it Halloween. (spooky)The movie starts off with a HUGE dose of gore, as a camping couple is attacked by one of the local inbred mutants. This is a great gore scene, as the guy find his girl hanging from a cliff, with her crying for help. All he sees is her head, arms, and shoulders hanging in front of him and when he pulls her up, she has been completely sliced in two. This is what I would call EXTREME GORE, with entrails, blood, and severed limbs all over the place. We are in Herschell Gordon Lewis territory here folks, except the effects look much more realistic. I'm going to just skip the story, because it's your standard stalk and kill plot.The next gore scene is something to behold, as the boyfriend from the first killing is taken to a cave like location (TCM-2 stuff), and bound to a table. This geek then cuts all of his limbs off (off camera, with a cue to insert a scene), and then we see his torso on a barbecue pit, turning slowly over a fire, and the torso has a hard-on (if you can believe that). Yes, very bad taste, gross, gruesome, you find the right word, and it will probably fit too.Then later Jenna Jameson, her beautiful body and all, is cut from neck to crotch, and all her entrails are pulled out in graphic glee, and her blood drains into a pot. Yummy, a real turn on huh?But the best gore scene happens inside the house, and I have to admit, this is one of the best gore scenes I have seen. This guy (doesn't matter who) is caught from behind from a geek, and cut open at the ass hole. The geek then puts his hands in and rips out all the guys entrails, intestines, and what the hell ever else there is, right from his asshole. This goes on FOREVER, as the guy is screaming and more and more innards are pulled out laying all over the bathroom floor. This is so extreme, so over the top, that I found myself laughing all to hell. Obviously, you will NEVER EVER see this scene on a proper DVD, IMO, along with most of the other really extreme gore scenes.So, what to think of all of this. Well, first of all, even though I doubt this movie would ever be released in this totally uncut presentation, it makes this \"Rough Cut\" a rare jewel for gorehounds. Yes, it's a little difficult at first, with no soundtrack, a few scenes to still be inserted, and credits that have missing names all over the place. But that's what makes this so unique, and I wouldn't trade it for anything right now. Extreme gore, yes yes, extreme extreme gore. This makes \"Haute Tension\" look like a Disney movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-35888b0ce9da4f0895d48876d5024157", "input": "Review: Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b83927b089f241ea906174661651d38d", "input": "Review: Follow-up to 1973's far better \"Cleopatra Jones\" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-36f6a998200a4b5485a360341c48853b", "input": "Review: Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as \"The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur\". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias \"Macintosh\" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21b11a1f103446379b21441a08cd2426", "input": "Review: First, I am not really a fan of the whole \"things eating flesh in disgusting new ways\" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-016de07406e74c7c92ca2015f93ec2ac", "input": "Review: In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: \"You are all dead in this situation!\" barks a sergeant. \"Any Questions?\" \"Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?\" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51d4277658be4fc3896adc1a026b17b9", "input": "Review: The deceptive cover, title and very small hidden print of Power of Prayer tricked me into renting this movie.It started out really well and pulled me in. I REALLY liked it. Between 1/3 and 3/4's of it, the film started throwing in things that were not set up and made no sense. My first thought was, \"This is not written by someone who knows how to tell a story.\" I ended up re-watching parts of the movie, thinking I had missed something.By the time I reached the last 1/5 of the movie, it was all BORING, ANNOYING, RELIGION THUMPING DIALOG that made no sense, said nothing, and was annoying to listen to; I turned off the sound and did a fast forward to the end.Don't waste your time with this flick.Beware of DVDs labeled Whitlow Films and Level Path Productions.And I'm a practicing Catholic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f805de697f364f58b5b433a20834143f", "input": "Review: Super Speedway makes a great demo of your new DVD / bigscreen / 5.1 channel sound system. The IMAX camera puts you right in the race car, where you cruise around various tracks at high speed, reminiscent of the driving sequences in Grand Prix (if only that would appear on DVD!). I enjoy watching it again and again.The only minus, and why I didn't give it a 10, is some of the driving sequences look suspiciously like the film was speeded up. The soundtrack also requires a little suspension of disbelief - all you can hear in a real car is the engine. You won't hear swooshes as you go under bridges. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-566273b98e334901baefc71973be28ad", "input": "Review: How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem \"clichéd\", but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are \"cute funny\", purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf6d36f78a9c41e4878915b3a850471c", "input": "Review: I thought this was a splendid showcase for Mandy's bodacious bod. If you don't expect anything else, such as clever plot twists and believable character development, you won't be disappointed. Consider this a Sports Illustrated shoot whose character goes around killing people, especially those who threaten to come between her and her 'Mommy' (Suzanna Arquette, who obviously doesn't want to play the sex kitten - she leaves that up to her daughter).Mandy's face is a little too perfect, but her body is a complete 5-alarm fire, up there in the ranks of Sophia Loren when it comes to natural bustiness, a perfect 7-to-10 ratio of waist to hips, and splendidly configured legs, right down to her feet. (There has to be some ideal configuration of thighs to knees to calves to ankles that is altogether pleasing to the eye; Mandy certainly is the model for this idealized ratio).And no flat butt to boot, which seems to be the undoing of many a busty babe with curves everywhere except in the 'nether hemispheres'. Mandy might have used a body double in the rear shot of her losing her towel as she descended into the candle-lit hot tub with her blindfolded German-Guy Victim No. 2, but from all I could see from her bikini shots, she had the butt for it and didn't need a double to prove it.Mandy's acting abilities had little to do with her impression of a psychotic 'Mommy's Girl', with the obvious erotic lesbian overtones. Her bisexual nature (allowing herself to be boinked in the hot tub after a long flirtation with German Guy No. 2, who also happened to be her mother's lover) added an additional dimension to an otherwise one-dimensional caricature of adolescent female horniness conflicted with pathological murderous impulses (always by water with the men - the ultimate fate of the Latina housekeeper was edited out in the televised version for some obscure reason).Mandy's Uber-Nordic facial features coupled with her Uber-Voluptuous body could either be a blessing or a curse. If Mandy really wants to further her career as an actress, I'd advise her to immerse herself fully in the Romance Languages, especially Italian and Spanish - and maybe French, although I don't know if they would go for her type. But this would enable her to reconcile her Bo Derek face with her Vida Guerra body - but maybe her face is just a little too Nordic, and she has shown off too much of her extraordinary body in a cheesy movie to enable her to advance to any more fame that was enjoyed by Michelle Johnson of the 1980's whose early fame in Blame it on Rio was followed by a series of skin flicks that failed to make it off the ground.Vambo Drule. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c16379a47fc24856ac1260c08c457e08", "input": "Review: Having seen CUBE, I've been a fan of Vincenzo Natali's work. Natali seems to have this inept ability to take a storyline, and hardly wring it our like a wet towel for all the storyline he can muster. Instead, he lets the stories themselves unfold in natural ways, so much in fact, that you may in fact believe there is this Cube were people try to escape, or in the case of NOTHING, a large empty expanse where there is... nothing! The advert had me hooked instantly. It seemed so simple! Take two characters who no one likes, and send them to a world where there is nothing. Natali does this so simply that you forget the logic that a place where there is nothing cannot exist. In fact, the world of nothing becomes something of an irony within the film. There's nothing there, but also 'something' there.It might be a good time to point out that the trailer is highly misleading. I was fortunate enough to actually understand that the film leaned to a more comedic side than the trailer otherwise told so. Therefore upon watching the film, i laughed every now and again, whereas someone who the advert mislead may find themselves utterly confused.If i may take a minute to give the film some praise, where the film excels on is the concept. It is a genius concept to have a world of nothing, and to put two characters there, NOT two brilliant minded characters, who will philosophise and work out their surroundings, but two idiots who have absolutely no clue as to where the hell they are! Another strong point is the film's cinematography, though at first this may not seem it! Where each wall, north, earth, south, west, up and down is just a white plane, a perception of depth becomes faulty. It is hard to determine where things are placed in the Mis-En-Scene. The cinematography has many moments where this actually happens, but for the most part, the camera is placed so that two characters, or an object and a character are placed in the foreground and background, allowing a sense of depth to be realised.However, this film does lack in certain areas. The film is relatively short, but even so, after a while the novelty of this world of nothing becomes rather dull, and you wish to find some form of resolution within the plot. We can also argue that the acting is once again, questionable. These two characters are in a sense, unlikeable, therefore we feel no sympathy at any point for these characters. However, on a flip side of that, the chemistry and friendship between the two characters seems real enough, but there is something lacking.Even so, i do rank this as a thoroughly enjoyable film! Do not let the trailer fool you into thinking this is another science-fiction horror film. It is much more of a comedy than that! It is indeed worth watching though, purely for the concept itself! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b65c0f263b5a43d1a141c577f522fed2", "input": "Review: I haven't yet read Kurt Vonnegut's Mother Night (though I've read other books of his, all outstanding pieces of satire and game-changing novel pieces). After seeing Keith Gordon's film adaptation of his book, it will be an immediate must-read in the near future. It's the kind of material that I'm sure if it wasn't made in 1995/96 as a film, it would be picked up right away today in the time period when many period post/present-Holocaust/WW2 movies are quite popular. Except that this is much darker, though even more resonant, about the nature of playing roles and the real underlying horror of living with life after war than say The Reader. It's about the very real danger of pretending in wartime, which is what being a spy in WW2 is really all about.It would be one thing if Mother Night had a script with a lot of emotional depth and complexity about the moral choice and constant role- even after the war ends- for Howard W. Cambpell (Nick Nolte), which is does. But it's also just a really strong feat of cinematic technique. Keith Gordon is not someone I usually think of as a director of really strong material (more-so I think back to him as an actor, oddly enough featured briefly with Vonnegut himself in Back to School), but this is a revelation. He takes the story of Campbell as a story of a fractured life: a German propaganda master (the \"only American left in Berlin\"), who is actually a spy for the Americans but can never have his identity revealed, and was before a playwright who really belonged to \"a nation of two\", himself and his wife (Sheryl Lee). It follows him from his prison cell, awaiting trial in Israel in 1961, as he writes his memoir and tells of his disillusionment about being a 'pretend' Nazi, and then in 1960 in semi-hiding in a New York apartment, which is where the bulk of the film takes place.Mother Night can be quite heavy, like on a level one might associate with the Pianist, but on another more emotional-cerebral level than the stark poetry of that film. Gordon, by way of Vonnegut, is trying to give us a strong look at a man who has nothing, except the memory (and then later a weird transposition) of his long lost love in a \"sister\" who has come back to him in NYC, so he's left to his own devices when he befriends a painter (Alan Arkin, very very good here), and then is found out as a Nazi-in-hiding by a white supremacist newsletter, leading wackos to his apartment. On the surface this should be just a straightforward spy story, but not a thing is straightforward. The 'something' of this man's life is staggering, but it's ultimately of his own choosing. Campbell is one of those characters that could be analyzed for hours on end, but the same conclusions might be reached (and, in a way, mirrors the line Goebbels said): the bigger the lie, the more people believe it. That is except for the select few who started the lie and know its secret and power.But oh, it would be one thing if it were just a wonderful and tragic-comic tale, or another if it were featuring some really fantastic performances (which is does: Nolte is at his very best here, and Sheryl Lee, who we might remember from Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer, stuns in multiple roles, especially in the scene when she reveals she's not 'really' Helga). It's also a gorgeously shot film, with brilliant lighting and shots that reflect the state of mind of the character, or just the starkness or sickening colors of the time (watch the scene where an old Campbell watches a film of his younger self spouting out a rant, the juxtaposition of faces is great). And the music selections rise the level of tragedy. It could be argued some of the music is too much, but at other times it elevates the material past its own usual dramatic dimensions and makes it operatic, solemn about human nature.It's not always an easy film to take emotionally, and some of the twists do have that tinge of \"whoa\" as in any spy story. But it's the subversion from Vonnegut that sticks through, the way of taking appearance and performance, of life imitating art imitating life imitating death, and making it into something worth remembering. I have no idea just yet if the book is better than the film (or the other way around), but at the moment it's hard for me not to recommend this to anyone looking for a masterpiece of post WW2/holocaust storytelling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0808caa11c7344a695eddd5f73dcc12f", "input": "Review: OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0b29f6e40464739aa92a8e148f4deca", "input": "Review: I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40f084abfd5f4f13899cbe83e1e0ed16", "input": "Review: 1933 seemed to be a great year for satires (\"Duck Soup\" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the \"Goings On About Town\" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e07f85e9e80c4340acda395d1a5fdb3e", "input": "Review: Saw this Saturday night at the Provincetown Film Festival, and it's a stick-to-your-bones movie -- it's really stayed with me. Adapted very smartly from what is probably an excellent novel, it's a back-and-forth-in-time drama with fully rounded characters, thoughtful rumination on life choices, and, I'm not exaggerating. one of the greatest casts ever assembled in 100+ years of movie-making. Wonderful work from everyone, led by a luminous Vanessa Redgrave as a dying, deluded Newport matron, and Claire Danes as her much younger self. Meryl Streep's daughter Mamie Gummer is, like Mama, the real deal; Patrick Wilson looks like Paul Newman circa 1958 and doesn't overplay the charm; and what a pleasure to see such excellent stage actors as Barry Bostwick and Eileen Atkins contributing sharp, detailed cameos. Hugh Dancy, also from the stage, doesn't bring much edge to the somewhat clichéd role of an unhappy rich wastrel, and the family issues are resolved perhaps more neatly than real life would allow. But it's a deliberately paced, visually gorgeous meditation on real life issues, and you can cry at it and not feel like you're being recklessly manipulated. Also, what a sumptuous parade of 1940s/50s automobiles. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39119b61c4d649f9926e67f486f93761", "input": "Review: \"Telefilms\" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f773190c511e428eb44bc11d063a32de", "input": "Review: To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56543a1759414e2d992bfd585f8af112", "input": "Review: Written by the excellent McGovern and directed by Frears this film was a slight disappointment. It seemed too short. It spent far too long creating the Hovis atmosphere, and laughing at the Catholic demands. Then very quickly you have the fascist and socialists vying for the family's attention, and the terrible conclusion.Still my wife thought Liam was cute. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d6ed7bdccc04a2f9be0a0b8eb37ee98", "input": "Review: I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9619562b90394e5b94aaff1fcc293b81", "input": "Review: The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. \"It can't matter\", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers \"it must matter\" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45041ca66c1f4bd5967836b223863262", "input": "Review: If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed4351355bb245acb7b408bf43c54513", "input": "Review: What can i say about the first film ever?You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb33f61a61a344f5a199c841352e132a", "input": "Review: This God forsaken film is about three dumb millionaires who gather a bunch of people to play a deadly game, and the winner gets a million dollars. First of all, the acting is terrible, and the movie makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not scary in the least bit, it is so stupid that it made me laugh, which is why it earned that 1 star.The movie is not violent at all, but is pretty sleazy and focuses mostly on the women's breasts the whole time, and some of the characters are very annoying and whiny. Plus, the monsters in this movie are so cheesy and fake and not scary that it just makes you want to throw something at the screen. Last, but not least the ending is terrible. I don't want to give it away, in case you actually are strange enough to see this piece of junk. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!Not Rated (But should be R) for Nudity, Profanity, and Mild Gore. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6aa989a1f2c14bdda8ec8e49debf1d87", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are not admitted to soccer games. Officially it's because they are to be spared from the vulgar language and behavior of the male audience. But of course it is about sexism. Women are lower forms of human beings.Some brave girls oppose this and try to get into the stadium by using different tricks. They are caught by soldiers and hold in a kind of cage, until the police will come and pick them up.Despite the insane situation, this is a film with lots of humor. It's also encouraging to see how people always find different ways of fighting oppression. You'll get touched at the same time as you have lots of laughs. Good job by director Jafar Panahi. This is in many ways a heroic comedy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86766c8b519045f4abe113f456e2be3f", "input": "Review: it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-400912658a514612bf6f097f295737d0", "input": "Review: French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2536a293c271407cb5e48d2e15cbbc10", "input": "Review: This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-03bdf54d580c4e0ca1f3757f22be28cc", "input": "Review: I never was an avid viewer of \"Crocodile Hunter\", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers! Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from \"Crocodile Hunter\" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical \"Crocodile Hunter\" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, \"The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course\" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in \"Crocodile Hunter\" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef288541b3a94df8966fc127a92cc998", "input": "Review: Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, \"Dark Floors\" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of \"Floors\" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, \"Dark Floors\" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group \"Lordi\" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.Any film that has their lead character use the phrase \"it's too quiet\" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point. Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the \"couple\" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. \"The Shining\" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in \"Dawn Of The Dead\" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in \"Alien\" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in \"Dark Floors\" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere \"Lordi\" just aren't scary.It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as \"Hollywood\" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. \"Dark Floors\" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d180ed8cd714cacb26ea0458a68e4d5", "input": "Review: I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.Totally failure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06d3161619854e4d8aeb311e85e2918f", "input": "Review: This is so exciting! After I saw \"La Roue\" this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ada26eacb9f4a2eae42a3db11d354e9", "input": "Review: How can you resist watching a film with some swing? It's a delightful little film full of wonderful actors and a wonderful story line. Too bad they don't tour out here...I'd go see them. See it if for no other reason than to hear some good music. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b7bae6c780a4c808a565a011d1e1b1d", "input": "Review: I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state \"Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify????? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85c9bcb85df44b2f876d113216ceacba", "input": "Review: I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving. 2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4266fa8574c74aa9aafcbf813c8cff6c", "input": "Review: I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the \"experts\" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47b723a4366949fe862edf7b1148eb4b", "input": "Review: I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56e89b5b3ed94e9d9c8aef1636e9ca39", "input": "Review: I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until \"poor little rich girl\" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently \"poison\" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with \"not being wanted\".....is she going to be able to handle this?I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-121b43e1ccc04bc480484b2a68ebf75c", "input": "Review: After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his \"normal\" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones \"mirror\" the old ones. How profound.Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be50969b723e4bb9b27fa822a8fd1c9a", "input": "Review: The original title means \"The Birth of the Octopuses\". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is \"Water Lilies\". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: \"The title in French is also suggestive: \"prieuve\", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously.\" Thanks for your explanation.The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of \"water lilies\". Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that. I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. – There is a parallel scene in another movie, \"Kazetachi no gogo\" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest. Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this. But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene. Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of – I would like to quote Baudelaire, \"Les amours enfantines\".Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in \"The Little Devils\" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) – a very underrated movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-710a33a37f9f444d8a77a8dd5826be5b", "input": "Review: This movie seems on the surface to be a run of mill kids movie that parents can regretfully watch with their mostly entertained little kids. The movie seems and is mostly geared towards children yet it does not stop on this level. I watched this movie first as a young child and found it to be funny, entertaining,and heartwarming and did not see it again for several years. I watched it again recently at age 18 and found it to be almost as funny but just as heartwarming and entertaining. This movie is highly underrated and contains many messages of real life. This movie is an inspirational quest story that is made for kids yet epic in its own right. I recommend this movie to anyone of any age. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6a8bc14c42c4061a6dd01aad8b132e0", "input": "Review: The TV guide described the plot of SEVERED TIES as thus : \" An experiment on a severed arm goes awry \" so right away I thought this was going to be about an arm that`s got a mind of its own as seen in THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or THE HAND or someone getting an arm transplant as in BODY PARTS . Both premises are tried and tested , or to be more accurate tired and tested so I was curious as to how the producers would approach the story . I actually thought they were making an arthouse movie like PI down to the use of B&W photography at the start of the film but the makers seemed to have tired of this approach after 20 seconds and decided to make a splatter comedy similar to THE EVIL DEAD . I`ve very little to say on this except that I disliked THE EVIL DEAD movies and I disliked SEVERED TIES and it seems really unfair that films like this use an obscene amount of rubber when the third world is crying out for condoms Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2955d7420b9c4fe8b1706db53b142f11", "input": "Review: VERY dull, obvious, tedious Exorcist rip-off featuring a Doberman with red eyes - that's the extent of the special effects in this made-for-tv cheapie. Richard Crenna is about as animate as a chew toy. Very 70's dress & music only add to the torture. Should put you to sleep almost as fast as \"The Corpse Vanishes\", or \"The Blue Hand\". Practically worthless. MooCow says eaghhh what a stinky dog! :=8P Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2f346ce973544b7afb3177a8cf3373f", "input": "Review: THE JIST: See something else.This film was highly rated by Gene Siskel, but after watching it I can't figure out why. The film is definitely original and different. It even has interesting dialogue at times, some cool moments, and a creepy \"noir\" feel. But it just isn't entertaining. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in plot but especially in character motivations. I don't know anyone that behaves like these characters do.This is a difficult movie to take on -- I suggest you don't accept the challenge. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d409180dd19466786220da0c93773ef", "input": "Review: What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1929955dc95446d98c861910212f9c82", "input": "Review: I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched \"Garam Masala\". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that \"air hostesses\" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play \"Boeing Boeing.\" The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1b37de80a7447ffa406932611ad2ad7", "input": "Review: IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like \"My friends are going to be so jealous!\" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66f404a169154fd1accb1769fb7dc5da", "input": "Review: In my mind the best of the Ealing comedies and one of my favourite films of all time. The theme of workers v. management (with lots of talk of unions and rights) perhaps dates the film a bit now as it's no longer a subject discussed all that much but that doesn't stop \"White Suit\" from being a show stopping classic.The plot, about a man trying to create a revolutionary new fabric which ends up putting the textiles industry into turmoil, doesn't sound exciting when written down but the film retains that essential spark of fantasy mixed with reality that marks it out as a true Ealing comedy. The fabric repels dirt and can never wear out! The titular white suit that Alec Guinness wears throughout the second half becomes the centrepiece for several iconic images and sequences, such as Guinness being able to use his indestructible thread to scale a sheer wall! The script itself is full of dry wit - \"Is he all right?\" \"Yes.\" \"Pity.\" - and characterisation is first rate. I'm always astonished by the wonderful direction in these films as well. Comedies of later eras would adopt a \"point the camera at the actors and let it roll\" mentality but the Ealing films always attempted interesting lighting and angles and innovations. This film is no exception.Of course, it's the cast that lifts the material to dizzying heights. Alec Guinness gives a fantastically understated performance, with eyes that convey wonder, joy and crushing defeat whenever the story demands it. Stratton is a man oblivious to everything except his work. Such an insular character could quickly have become boring or irritating but Guinness effortlessly makes him likable, so much so that the closing stages of the film generate a real sense of urgency as Stratton tries to come out on top in a world that wants to bury everything he's ever worked for. Joan Greenwood plays another of her strong female roles and is an absolute delight to watch as usual, as are befuddled Cecil Parker and slimy Michael Gough; everybody gets laughs without even trying to. It's comical British understatement at its finest.\"The Man in the White Suit\" is 81 minutes of sheer brilliance, with a great plot, great cast, sparkling wit and healthy dollops of cynicism. Absolutely top notch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5536350ead11460696ed5e0e72c6d401", "input": "Review: Certainly any others I have seen pale in comparison. The series gives balanced coverage to all theatres of operation. No one country is given undue credit for the Allied victory. Laurence Olivier brings great weight and dignity to his role as narrator. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c4cd9bbcd5b44449970167e0c11c3a3", "input": "Review: Steve Carell comes into his own in his first starring role in the 40 Year Old Virgin, having only had supporting roles in such films as Bewitched, Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, and his work on the Daily Show, we had only gotten a small taste of the comedy that Carell truly makes his own. You can tell that Will Ferrell influenced his \"comedic air\" but Carell takes it to another level, everything he does is innocent, lovable, and hilarious. I would not hesitate to say that Steve Carell is one of the next great comedians of our time.The 40 Year Old Virgin is two hours of non-stop laughs (or 4 hours if you see it twice like I did), a perfect supporting cast and great leads charm the audience through the entire movie. The script was perfect with so many great lines that you will want to see the movie again just to try to remember them all. The music fit the tone of the movie great, and you can tell the director knew what he was doing.Filled with sex jokes, some nudity, and a lot of language, this movie isn't for everyone but if you liked the Wedding Crashers, Anchorman, or any movie along those lines, you will absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-838df8d8eac645b5b5330b2970e026fd", "input": "Review: OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7cc340242eb4c01b8ea794f4d6200cb", "input": "Review: Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first halfhour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going tohappen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how theirseemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But whenthe writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, theymistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstillfor the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it onlygot worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeoushunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do withthe plot, but without them, at least there would have been oneattractive cast member to remember. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8401b8828614ed689df4963bd130fe3", "input": "Review: I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played \"Thunderbirds\" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a42e6bc0c72b421e916e5b98364843b9", "input": "Review: What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-75406d4c17a34dca96244654e7781a68", "input": "Review: The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13b7249efcdf488f95d5f9e7bb43468e", "input": "Review: When I noticed that \"Hamish Macbeth\" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name \"Hamish Macbeth\" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41a7b8c842cc4f998195191462657e78", "input": "Review: Let me start off by saying that I didn't watch this movie at first with high expectations. It was recommended to me by a friend with mediocre taste in movies, and \"MTV\" was pasted on the front cover so I was not expecting much. What i was expecting was a tear-jerker, overly dramatic but at least effective.I was wrong.Firstly, let me start off that I had never read the book nor watched any other versions of the movie.The acting was my main gripe with the film. By god is it AWFUL. The main girl is pretty mediocre, but when compared to the rest of the cast she's Maryl Streep. The main \"Hero\", Heath, is just plain awful. He can sing decent sounding clichéd songs, but that's about it. His acting broke the 'sad' moments by being so bad at points that I just burst into laughter. The Isabel girl was pretty godawful too, and the brother was just a flat character that was played by an actor that couldn't display emotion whatsoever. And when he tried to, it failed miserably. Neil Patrick Harris was the only decent actor, playing Edward, although it's obvious the direction was bad because even he did not live up to what I've seen him do. Oh, and the father wasn't half-bad to my memory, but he was in the movie for such a small amount of time I can hardly remember.The story itself was not very good. More breakups than you can imagine. Predictable story (Until the ending, which I barely understood). EXTREMELY one-sided characters with no real depth to them... Overall just not interesting or compelling, nothing we've never seen before done MUCH better, and nothing worth watching here.The ending is suppose to be a tearjerker. It did nothing of the sort. The ending isn't built up at all, it almost feels like an afterthought. In fact, I had to ask my friends WHY the ending actually happened, which when they explained it to me I must have had a look on my face of \"Wait, when did they say that? What?\". Never a good sign. The editing was probably the worst I've seen, though I do understand the fade-ins-fade-outs are done because this was originally made for TV, but that's really no excuse.Overall, the movie is just garbage. I'm a sensitive guy, I cried during two episodes of the Simpsons. I never cried during this crap, not even close. Really, this movie is not worth your time. If you really want to see a tearjerker look elsewhere. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0669abc2f4744ac9f4522704df16a3b", "input": "Review: Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b9ecc91ec00489ea27075fa1ad89086", "input": "Review: This is the best movie I`ve ever seen !!! Thomas Beckett & Richard Miller -two mankinds who want to survive in the \"jungle\" of violence and madnes, one shot - one killed !!? You must kill, if you getting doubt about something, YOU MUST SURVIVE !!P.P.- I appologise of my bad / worst/ English !!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7dcb13dd5204742818a141fcc6ae1d1", "input": "Review: A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e9a983f024d486abc992bedaa34b4e9", "input": "Review: I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-332899f95ec84a9c82d173960fed40d0", "input": "Review: *Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, \"Werewolf.\" I have never seen anything like that in a film.The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66dc3917314b40a2b524fe19ee365bbd", "input": "Review: I was recently online looking at a site that featured public domain movies. In their long list of films was this film and I thought I must be hallucinating at such an offensive title and premise. But, no, that's really what it was. And since the film was only about 27 minutes long, I decided to give it a try. If it had turned out to be some porno movie, I would have stopped watching. Instead, it turned out to be the most bizarre film I have ever seen. The Danish production crew tried, with a budget of about $49, to make a Star Trek-style film about a crew of very gay men traveling about the galaxy wiping out female oppression by killing all the women--like they proceeded to do on the Earth! And in every case, they were met with cheers and thanks from the now gay men of the planet.Subtle, this ain't. With some of the most obscene and juvenile names of characters I've ever heard, I don't even think I can write them on IMDb without having my review removed! However, despite the utter crappiness of it all, it was strangely watchable and worth a peek. But, as I mentioned already, due to the crude names and odd subject matter (though no nudity), it's a film for adults only. By the way, this movie left me with 1001 questions as to WHO would make this, WHY make it and WHO was the intended audience?! It may not be the absolute worst thing I have ever seen, but it probably is the weirdest and possibly the most offensive! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17277846a481430a93d275f374c46945", "input": "Review: Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de4568e5fd9f4ea0b5088c688c421fde", "input": "Review: This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in \"Anamorph\" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of \"Anamorph\". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d1c8cdaa4ba4099a3d27f3a1e2d4af7", "input": "Review: Brand Hauser (John Cusack) is an assassin for the CIA. He is ordered to go to the country of Turaquistan, a nation that the United States has \"liberated\", and kill a businessman named Omar Shariff. This is because the American conglomerate, Tamerlane, that is putting the country \"back together\" will not stand for Shariff, an oil man from a neighboring state, laying down his own pipeline through war-torn Turquistan. But, once there, Brand runs into difficulties. One, he meets a determined journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei) who wants to tell the American public the \"true\" story of the region's conflict...and of Tamerlane. But, Brand is aghast to realize that Natalie's pretty face and sharp mind instantly and unconsciously compels him to lose focus on his mission. Also, his cover as a trade show host forces him to meet the country's pop-singing princess, Yonica (Hillary Duff), who will be getting married at the convention center. She is a young diva whose wedding arrangements also turn Brand's attention away from the coming assassination. With other inept underlings and complications, will Brand be able to carry out his mission, for the satisfaction of Tamerlane's BIG boss, the former vice-president (Dan Ackroyd)? Good for you, John Cusack, to make this film, even though it doesn't quite hold together. Shot in Serbia, it is a worthy look at what present-day Iraq must be like, a country turned upside-down. In a stroke a brilliance, the green zone here is called \"The Emerald City\" and aptly so, for this Oz-like neighborhood attempts to keep out the ravages of war going on elsewhere in the metropolis. The cast is very fine, with Cusack doing a nice job and Tomei, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Ackroyd and others backing him up in style. Duff, especially, does a great turn as the heavily-accented, heavily made-up, potty-mouthed singer. The recreation of war-riddled Baghdad is so real that it hurts while the costumes and other production values are top-notch. As for the script, it isn't always cohesive but it certainly has some tremendous dialogue and scenes. For example, a young Turaqui boy offers to show Brand an enemy hideout, in exchange for money and candy. Brand produces the cash but, because he has no candy, the boy burns his vehicle anyway. Brilliant! Then, also, the direction is not a total success but doesn't lag very often. No, if you have conservative leanings, you probably won't like this film one bit. But, if you have an open mind and want to see a satirical view of the \"war on terrorism\", this is quite a good show. Therefore, do make an effort to view it, as you will be supporting those filmmakers who choose to make movies far away from those old studio \"formulas\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ddc87dd50ef4bafb8fb022fbd2386f6", "input": "Review: This film is a very funny film. The violence is bad, the acting is...Well Dani, stick to singing or screaming or whatever the hell it is you usually do. The random chicks wearing hardly anything is just to catch sexually-frustrated goth lads in. Personally, i think this movie really does suck. The story and characters COULD be very good, if say the directing, the actors and other little nibby things were made better. But the film is just bad, the only reason why people like this piece of crap is because it has Danni in it. This film is possibly the worst B-rate film ever. And, believe me that's hard to achieve, especially when you're competing with Def by Temptation and over crappy excuses for \"serious\" horror movies. I'm not a CoF fan, and so i just see this as another rubbish movie...A really bad one. If Dani made this as a comedy then, good going him. Very well done. Over than that though, i rate it low, for it's crappiness. Watch it when you're in a happy, happy, joy, joy mode so you can laugh at everything or if you're high on multiple different types of drugs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-356e21344f7445b39e0a875601333a1c", "input": "Review: Got to this show late - believe it was the 3rd, and final episode, when first watched it - and was blown away by a social commentary that hasn't been seen on American TV since 'All in the Family'.Was very surprised CBS would even run this in the first place.Which is merely to say the last time CBS 'had a set' - if you know what I mean - was back in the day of 'All in the Family'. The most controversial decision they're willing to tackle today is how much eye make-up to put on Katie Couric.If you want to make a bunch of folks really, really mad - let them discover the truth about themselves. And if you want them willing to pull strings, make calls, and get a work of Art removed - let them discover that truth by hearing their own words spoken from their own mouths.The Aardman folks have always been WAY ahead of the curve. And this show is no different. Somehow it snuck under the CBS 'corporate/social/political/censor radar' to get it onto the schedule (perhaps the 'big brass' never really watched it till it finally aired?), but once good 'ol middle 'merika heard and saw themselves being themselves - well, can bet the farm that message, or the messenger, won't last long.Now, if only the 'missing episodes' can find their way onto Usenet or bit-torrent ;-)Thank You BC Kelly Tallahassee Fla Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e211d90fb244773bb117967fdee216f", "input": "Review: As with all environmentally aware films from the 1970s SOYLENT GREEN has a rather cheesy view of what ecological meltdown is . Overpopulation means there`s too many people to feed ? I was under the impression that famines were caused by either war or failed economic policies . Stalin`s policy in the Soviet Union in the 1930s left millions dead because of famine and to this day the greatest man made tragedy was Mao`s rural policy in China which led over 30 million starvation deaths in the 1950s . And let`s not forget the great famines in the horn of Africa in the 1980s and 90s which were to do with conflicts not overpopulation . You might like to also consider that two of the most heavily populated areas on Earth , Hong Kong and Macau , have never suffered a famine in modern times . Likewise the expansion of shanty towns around cities as seen here isn`t strictly down to overpopulation - it`s down to economic factors where people flock to cities to find better paid work than in the countryside ( It`s a symptom of industrial progress - not of too many births ) so the image of the streets of New York city being too congested to walk through and of having people sleep in stairwells is somewhat laughableBut don`t be fooled into thinking SOYLENT GREEN is a pile of corny tree hugging crap because I consider this to be the best ecological film of the70s . It plays on the contempary audience`s knowledge of the world where Sol and Thorn are beside themselves with joy at finding fruit , brandy and fresh meat . Thorn gasps in amazement at having ice in his whisky , puffs on a cigarette and delivers the classic line \" If I could afford it I`d smoke two , maybe three of these a day \" . But it`s the visage of the euthanasia chamber that`s memorable as Thorn gazes at the images of wild animals , flowers , running water and snow covered mountains , a world Thorn`s generation has never known . This is a very haunting scene which makes SOYLENT GREEN a very memorable film , combined with the fact it features the final screen appearance of Edward G Robinson as the wise old Jew Sol Roth Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c7957bb2556404ea0050aece8039950", "input": "Review: Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living \"under a rock\" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life ! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e918b83844244fc182fb74113efe17ad", "input": "Review: Despite the rave reviews this flick has garnered in New Zealand, any hype surrounding the production is sadly undeserved. Apart from a clichés-only plot, the movie is let down by some weak acting, accents, and overall lack of tension.Whilst having the overall look of a big budget (for NZ), the feel is decidedly small-town Kiwi...Has anyone not seen The Brothers ?? Those who have will pick the similarities straightaway....I've heard comments that scenes like the boys playing basketball etc were shot to poke fun at the clichéd \"boys talking crap\", but it comes across as forced...I believe Oscar Keightley sees himself as deeply ironic, but again his delivery always seems merely vaguely self conscious.Those who have any doubts left at all that Samoans-living-in-NZ culture has been deeply , hopefully not permanently ,affected by American speech , culture, and everything inbetween will certainly have their minds made up at the end of this movie.Robbie magasiva always looks good on screen , but is let down by the script..It always rubs me up the wrong way when a \"comedy\" has scenes that are set up in such an obvious way, you are left feeling like having a good groan at the clichéd punchline - see the wanna be white boy...I know someone who found this movie hilarious -however, that person has the brains of a tadpole, and would struggle to spell her name if offered a million dollars....That kinda sums up the mentality of this flick , OK but not great , fun but not funny.....Wake up NZ - this is NOT a 5 star movie despite all the glowing (middle class white guilt ?? :-) ) reviews....My advice ? if you watch it, get drunk first!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58878841e9314ebe9360f275b1e324ca", "input": "Review: Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-febe57cea5d84bf2b80b056ba374124a", "input": "Review: \"My child, my sister, dream How sweet all things would seem Were we in that kind land to live together, And there love slow and long, There love and die among Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather.\"Charles Baudelaire Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, \"Enachanted April\" can be described in one sentence – it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that \"Enchanted April\" - an ultimate \"feel good\" movie is perfection of its genre. Lovely and sunny, tender and peaceful, kind and magical, it is like a ray of sun on your face during springtime when you want to close your eyes and smile and stop this moment of serene happiness and cherish it forever. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It helped me to regain my optimism and hope that anything could be changed and anything is possible. I had promised to myself then that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I did and I was not alone.Charming, enchanting, and heartwarming, \"Enchanted April\" is one of the best movies ever made and my eternal love. This little film is a diamond of highest quality. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2e559e720ed4339a496da7068cf92a7", "input": "Review: Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put \"good\" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself \"acting\"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: \"It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it.\" Ahh, more people have been called \"Brenda\" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6020c79f0fb45ed9793f00e2287276d", "input": "Review: This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a \"deep\" \"meaningful\" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties \"method \" -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his \"Uncle \"character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.Word to the wise:Take Foley's \"at close range\" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecab2b1903ac4559897304b3cca9b3e1", "input": "Review: Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed \"military genius\" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e28312829754dee82cf5f861507ae4a", "input": "Review: An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f3f515a0f76477fb3df16714281e6db", "input": "Review: First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out \"Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!\" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3937dc3f817c4890b7d9bc65a24ee596", "input": "Review: Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-da6cf473ba3e4a09abbd9a29c69f03a4", "input": "Review: Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b1feba413674ec7b4fe9bef97827883", "input": "Review: One of the most nihilistic and brutal films I've ever seen, but also one of the most tragic and moving ones. This is an action-melodrama like the world has never seen it before. Sometimes the plot got me close to tears, while in the next moment delivering shocking revelations like a bone-crunching blow to the guts. Chilling performance by Edison Chen. The story of a HK-Cop and a Cambodian killer hunting each other down, while bit by bit losing their humanity, is a strong one. Featuring very little dialog in favor of haunting imagery and gritty camera-work, \"Dog bite Dog\" is pure HK-Bloodshed without the Heroism. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd030a341ae345f69f74b031d0051419", "input": "Review: Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bacad919f3541c0bb6f24f86298cf83", "input": "Review: I saw this movie today and I have to say, it was much much better than I expected it to be about couple of hours before going to see it. Personally I had some prejudice due to the language of it, but it did totally change my idea. The movie was in most cases surprisingly good with the great actor and actress performances. It was a story about a boy who had a dream and who did everything to reach it. This really touched me and as a film, which is based on a true story, it convinced me. A new school, psycho headmaster and a young boy who get known with a new teacher, a bit different one than the others and about fighting for the things even if they doesn't seem to work out. It showed how little things can make huge changes in many things, and how difference can sometimes cause difficult situations. Also I think the actor selections has succeeded perfectly. It really felt like you had been some person watching the episodes as an outsider when they happened. Before I spoil this movie with praises, I have to admit that there were some things and situations that didn't look and feel realistic..like the one where the headmaster of the school beat Frits aka. Martin in front of the class, at the end of the movie. He really got beaten badly, but the only thing that it caused to him, was some blood coming from the nose when comparing that to the first beating in the beginning, when Frits got some stitches..well I guess every movie has it own faults..have to say, that if I someday somewhere find this DVD from the store, it's sure thing, that I take it with me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf31f353d79d4c619d6ca29f7033a150", "input": "Review: This Showtime movie really deserves a far better viewer rating than a 4.5; I gave it a 10 based on the story and the acting of the two stars. After reading the viewer comments, I was surprised at how many folks expected this movie to be a comedy. Yeah, I see that IMDb lists it as Comedy/Drama under Genre. That sure is misleading, isn't it? Fortunately, I saw the movie before logging onto this website so I did not have that expectation. In fact, based on the synopsis of what I heard, I fully expected it to simply be a Drama. I'm wondering if disappoint at this not being a funny movie caused so many low votes.Another factor that might have caused low votes is that this movie is very much 'character-driven'. 'Driving Miss Daisy' is an example of another character-driven movie that comes to mind. Someone's previous comment complained about a boring trial. Tom's (Danny Glover) work scenes seemed to distract from the real plot of the movie. That is, how he was engineering the upward social climb of his family - or his personal troops, if you will. However, they served to establish credibility and justification as his right to move to Greenwich and move 'up' in the world.Tom's obsession became a compulsion. He proved that he would stop at nothing to blend into the white neighborhood. His chagrin when another black person moved next door was not due to skin color. It was because of everything the 'interloper' represented; everything that Tom had left behind. In essence, Tom had become an Oreo cookie: Black on the outside but White on the inside.The last 20 minutes of this movie are among the most powerfully written, directed and acted (by Whoopi Goldberg) I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I realized that the climax of the film was not the obvious event that happened next door (don't want to give it away). The climax is verbal and Whoopi delivers it. I am still not clear if it is the conversation when she informs Tom which college Tom -Two is going to or when she releases it, all in the middle of the night and Tom wakes up. Nevertheless, the denouement is great. You know that life on that street will never be the same.My favorite kind of character-driven flick: people go through problems, some pain, do their dance, they grow, they change, and life goes on. As an audience member, I may learn something or be inspired. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6dcb2132cbdb4f4282bc3a00b798af7e", "input": "Review: Just another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcfe1569d599400bb170ed023c14210c", "input": "Review: The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc8ecc206cba49ca8610823398f7bc72", "input": "Review: Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91717daa651c4605a4fb2eac0b7f82d0", "input": "Review: When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.\"But its a comedy \" some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? \"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs\" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60192a8ad0994394a98200d95fbf5fac", "input": "Review: This game was really great and quite a challenge. It has a great, spooky story line and the graphics are also very good. I would recommend this game to all Horror fans and is very gripping from start to finish. The only problem with this game is that i would have liked more weapons but thats just me. A truly great game for RPG and Shoot'em'up fans.> Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65d6b6e913a745e08ff0ece9d33b84a3", "input": "Review: I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best. As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: \"Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted.\" Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved. The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab8d1addf50043a1a7b17c437cdea6d6", "input": "Review: This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c295193147e94e4b8de89dde49f0b5c4", "input": "Review: I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. \"The Perfect Word\" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. \"Fifi's Folly\" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. \"Broken Wing\" (or \"Broken Wind\" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28c8e6726e7643be976d8ef1638a9744", "input": "Review: It was a bit bizarre and evil and i enjoyed it a lot, the characters in the show were great as well, and complimented one another well. I was sorry to see it cut off.. I would have loved to see where it could have went.You found yourself leaning toward Lucas Buck the sheriff who had more secrets than anyone. Lucas was frightening and alluring. And I would have liked to have seen more of him and how his character became. I will however buy the show just to enjoy, it was great to something different on TV. And Paige Turrco who was Caleb's cousin, she was a big mystery as to where and what she meant to Lucas. Its a shame it isn't around still.. or was never finished, i would have loved to see what would have happened. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5792a27a7ee8428db0958446cbc60c08", "input": "Review: If you are a traveller, if there is a fire burning into your heart, if you'd call \"home\" every place on earth, but none of them can give you enough, if you are always looking for the next thing and if you believe the other part of your soul is somewhere out there, see this movie and you'll find out a little, but wonderful, piece of life sitting next to you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1f73db8c0a747878b04d9c919512e36", "input": "Review: A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to \"the Iranians.\" Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of \"Silk Stalkings\" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged \"drama\"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked \"one-liners\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-46a61f289ba84d81bd6e5917ea2d991b", "input": "Review: ...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually \"fabulous\" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1069ee9f471493ebfd0bf25f5536f22", "input": "Review: As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that \"one step out of place and (you're dead)\". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a \"sick man\". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-702029883b8f4e55bd7b070b08670e65", "input": "Review: It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2efb40631a974d0d9db8db0b32ede4de", "input": "Review: This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdf9784cdf024163a94e4faf2e16c86c", "input": "Review: Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e280d52be2fe407da8f2e10693ef6abd", "input": "Review: An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make \"L.A. Confidential\"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cce82bee5d74f90913ae65d0cb5f0a3", "input": "Review: The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58571f888a564bddb7e95b3f905af777", "input": "Review: Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total \"bomb\" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: \"I object!\" \"On what grounds?\" \"Coffee grounds!\"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c39c8647b94246b6a6b7fffcb38123f4", "input": "Review: Beautifully done. A lot of angst. Friendship may not endure all, but in the end it's all that matters, or so a group of friends learn. I have watched it over and over again. The music is also amazing. When Kei loses the one friend he has he gives up until he meets Sho, an orphan boy who is not repelled by his true nature. In the lawless streets of Mallepa they struggle for their own place among a melting pot of Asian races, and learn that sometimes being on top can cost you more than you are ever ready to pay. A surprise ending that grips as much as the whole movie does. I couldn't get enough of it. Gackt and Hyde do a wonderful job of acting, proving they are more than pretty boys who sing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b7dbc0841bc4fa58fa988b00c4ee863", "input": "Review: This movies chronicles the life and times of William Castle. He made a series of low budget horror films in the 1950s-1960s that he sold with gimmicks. In \"13 Ghosts\" you need viewers to see the ghosts (they were in color, the film was in b&w). \"The Tingler\" had theatre seats equipped with a buzzer that jolted the audience when a monster escapes into a movie theatre. \"Marabre\" issued a life insurance policy to all members in case they were frightened to death! The movies themselves were pretty bad but the gimmicks had people rushing to see them. In this doc there are interviews with directors inspired by Castle, actors in his movies and his daughter. It also gets into his home life and the kind of man he was (by all accounts he was a great guy). The documentary is affectionate, very funny and absolutely riveting. It's very short (under 90 minutes) and there's never a dull moment. A must see for Castle fans and horror movie fans. My one complaint--there were very few sequences shown from his pictures. That aside this is just great. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b70d58ccac444159f7a3c4a6bae5864", "input": "Review: First of all I saw this movie without knowing anything about it I just knew that Joel Schumacher did it and that was enough for me. A friend and I went to see it at a Danish film festival called the night-film festival which is a lot of different movies shown after hours the festival pretty much specializes in showing movies that wouldn't otherwise be shown in Danish theaters.Anyway My friend and I went to see it and we were astonished at how real it seemed and that it really struck a cord with our feelings, we really got caught up in the plot without being able to figure out the ending which is a great plus in our book.The film is recorded in a style that reminds me of the Danish initiative \"dogma 95\" which was started by 4 Danish directors including Lars Von Trier (Dancer In the Dark).In conclusion the movie is really worth seeing it gives a different perspective on how things were for the American G.I. Joe coming out of school being expected to serve their country in battle a long way from home.Also Colin Farrell is exceptional in this movie I haven't seen him before but I can't wait to see more of him.Lars P. Helvard Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d88f728adadb4b4a9b10119f43b256a4", "input": "Review: I love the book, \"Jane Eyre\" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc020e4e7e1d4d479a7267eb0323f830", "input": "Review: This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.This was worse than watching a car wreck. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f54be85942714f50956e78651b39eb02", "input": "Review: Robert Standish's novel is about a triangular romantic situation on a Ceylonese tea plantation... So the events of the Ceylon backgrounds and pictorial beauty are rewarding points to William Dieterle's film...The story is about a rich powerful planter (Peter Finch), who brings a charming and tender beauty (Elizabeth Taylor), into the jungle as his bride... The plantation, of course, is endangered by some kind of wild life... For this reason Taylor — elegant as never in dazzling costumes — finds herself in a strange atmosphere... The echo determination of a ghost, the bad temper of a husband obsessed by the memory of his autocratic father, a highly dangerous disease, and the fury of wild animals...In her confusion, boredom and annoyance Elizabeth Taylor looks to a friendly face, a pretentious foreman (Dana Andrews), who admires her beauty but tries to conquer her love...With echoes of \"Jane Eyre,\" the mysterious Yorkshire mansion with a brooding master, and \"Rebecca,\" the innocent young second wife hunted by the image of the glamorous first wife, \"Elephant Walk\" is a menace melodrama with a wide view of a huge tropical bungalow, exotic dances with rage excessively colorful, stampeding big bull elephants, amazing mansion set on fire, all in the company of an exquisite creature with an unquestioned beauty and talent...The movie gave Liz a change of scenery, and allowed her more creative energy and self-respect than most of her other willful debutante-rebels… The wife here has a sharp tongue and a strong will, and so Taylor plays her movie star heroine with more spirit than she was given credit for… Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0a62a9b3e174c6c9654c0c4451dcb82", "input": "Review: A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30e21f223ad84465908902cfaf5780ae", "input": "Review: I know the film snobs are snorting. But if you're looking for a surprisingly fun ride through the B-movie jungle, try \"Jake Speed\".A little thin at times, but its one-liners and the location more then make up for this. John Hurt(God love him), seems to be having fun doing his role as the ultra evil white slaver. The nemesis of Crawfords, Jake Speed. He adds a dimension to the film that only a pro like Hurt could provide. Crawford and Dennis Christopher( Jakes sidekick) are a good team,although you do wonder why they both put up with each other.However ,together both Crawford and Christopher portray a team that is just so much fun that, if you can get over yourself for a moment, you may find yourself acting like a kid again at the situations and the inherent suspense they provide.The delicious Karen Kopins does a great job as the damsel in distress that is more concerned about the motives of her rescuer then her tormentor.I have yet to find a movie that is as much fun without getting preachy,or bogging down the movie by trying too hard. Not every movie has to be the latest \"Citizen Kane\". And trust me,Wells was an original. So lets remember that sometimes, movies are for fun.Not social commentary or attempting to sway an audience politically. But just for the sheer fun of being alive and living in a time when our hero's live in a celluloid dimension. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72e070b9d99c4ff3a0f9646e57a80750", "input": "Review: This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b298b02dd4144a0be58cbc134088445", "input": "Review: Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, \"Melinda and Melinda\" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e8a0867c5b1473c93148ca6ea0aa156", "input": "Review: Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the \"newsreel\" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment (\"that'll be good!\" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a2b9c8e97ef45638ad19d5cb534b932", "input": "Review: No,Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.Spoiler Starts__They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f65f8238c0894fd28dddaba49cb52f30", "input": "Review: So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible \"Shrek\" might enjoy, but \"Wallace & Gromit\" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as \"Shrek.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d03ce1b7ab3484f98b682908817f4ab", "input": "Review: A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made \"Wrong Turn\" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a \"Master of Horror\" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.The issue of the \"right to die\" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from \"decent\" to \"spectacular\". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of \"Hellraiser\" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of \"Hellraiser 2\". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than \"Hellraiser 2\".Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the \"Washingtonians\" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-07df71f0694c4169951d7867703ad971", "input": "Review: It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing \"Newfoundland\" as \"New Fownd Land,\" Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e0bc275629742bfa51f2e4703fa28c6", "input": "Review: If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c4b853c38f04a7eb3cc4543c32ce6b4", "input": "Review: Should this be an American movie I'd rate it 7: we've seen this before. Being this an Argentinean movie, and being myself Argentine, I'd like to give it a 10, since it's the kind of quality I'd been hoping -rather than expecting- for. It's superb quality is astonishing, given all the limitations imposed by the 3rd World...I can't forget the scene when Díaz forces Silverstein's fiancé to confess -you know what I mean if you saw the movie. I think that's the key moment of the movie, not surprising maybe, yet original. That's when the real action begins.Before watching a movie I always try to gather some previous information. Being this a mainstream, satyric, commercial one, I press \"Play\" and make a suspension of reality and logic, I'd say the best state of mind to enjoy movies like this. It's impossible to discuss the plausibility of the whole plot, yet it's believable in a certain way. As for me, I couldn't stop laughing at every single joke and commentary -\"sos malo\" (\"you're mean\")... put in the mouth of Díaz, the greatest one.I'm rather tired of seeing movies \"designed for\" Peretti. I know he's a superb actor, but sometimes I feel his roles unfairly opaque the rest, Luis Luque's role in this case. I'm not very fond of Argentine television, so I haven't seen much work from Luque, but it's pretty obvious that he's an excellent performer. His physical role, his stares, his content attitude in this movie made me fall in love with his performance. I think his role should need some upgrading, just to let him show us how great he can be!I don't know whether Szifrón is planning to make a sequel or not. I know he won't make it if it's to follow the rule that \"second parts were never good\", so if he makes it, I'll surely go see it. And I hope that, in the future, takes into account the possibility to give Peretti's counterparts the same chances to develop their roles.Great movie, great performances, and lots of laughs! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43dbf7c20b9e4a2ea5ebd6649a6c4b57", "input": "Review: I just saw \"Behind Bedroom Doors,\" and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, \"Oh...I'm...not that way.\" Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motionFirst, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:\"Tell me about Gabe.\" \"What do you want to know?\" \"Is Gabe happily married?\" \"I'm married.\" \"There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl.\" \"Yes.\" \"She's not a bad girl?\" \"No.\" \"Does that door have a lock on it?\"You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who \"experimented\" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. \"It's only business,\" Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.To wrap up, \"Behind Bedroom Doors\" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b87014a1c683478d8400e49f7f44c6fd", "input": "Review: Based on Christy Brown's autobiographical novel, this endearing film tells the story of his life, him being affected by cerebral palsy and being considered basically not a person by everyone including his mother. Amazingly, he teaches himself to draw and write using his foot, which is the only part of him he can control. An amazing story of courage with a truly amazing and unforgettable oscar winning performance by Daniel Day Lewis. 9 of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-518e33ef15064602a88827acb0fb6c1b", "input": "Review: This is a decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb376dc833e4496888723fc3decf4f12", "input": "Review: The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called \"Blood\" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ea91cf407bb45b5a1074ba5cdc3b121", "input": "Review: This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f18d1d9eb13f4bbc97f3ce0835dfa96a", "input": "Review: There's some very clever humour in this film, which is both a parody of and a tribute to actors. However, after a while it just seems an exercise in style (notwithstanding great gags such as Balasko continuing the part of Dussolier, and very good acting by all involved) and I was wondering why Blier made this film. All is revealed in the ending, when Blier, directing Claude Brasseur, gets a phone call from his dad (Bernard Blier) - from heaven, and gets the chance to say how much he misses him. An effective emotional capper and obviously heartfelt. But there isn't really sufficient dramatic tension or emotional involvement to keep the rest of the film interesting throughout it's entire running time. Some really nice scenes and sequences, however, and anyone who likes these 'mosntres sacrés' of the French cinema should get a fair amount of enjoyment out of this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a26c34606901427b9c9fe6d6ddd081e8", "input": "Review: I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e55b0de95ac4290b2ef7df131c919a4", "input": "Review: Beautifully done. A lot of angst. Friendship may not endure all, but in the end it's all that matters, or so a group of friends learn. I have watched it over and over again. The music is also amazing. When Kei loses the one friend he has he gives up until he meets Sho, an orphan boy who is not repelled by his true nature. In the lawless streets of Mallepa they struggle for their own place among a melting pot of Asian races, and learn that sometimes being on top can cost you more than you are ever ready to pay. A surprise ending that grips as much as the whole movie does. I couldn't get enough of it. Gackt and Hyde do a wonderful job of acting, proving they are more than pretty boys who sing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2087cf236ba345ae8c7184f1c50174a3", "input": "Review: Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eaa5ff347d444b64bebd77281e8dee96", "input": "Review: I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of \"Rivers and Tides.\" However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed \"ethical\" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this \"artist,\" scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4244ee8513443bab794131ba73c91b5", "input": "Review: A winters day, 28th December 1986, two bored 14 year olds hire a movie. \"Hmmmm, Police Story, looks interesting\", \"who is this Jackie Chan?\", \"never heard of him\". Two hours later after watching the film, in a daze, we wanted to know more. 16 years later (and severely out of pocket from collecting JC movies!) the film still grabs me like no other. Ok, maybe I have a soft spot for it as it was my \"first\" (Cannonball Run doesn't count!!) JC movie, but it is an excellent movie. It has all the classic JC elements, Action, Humour, Action, Heart and ACTION! Some comments say it's dated, it was made in 1985, of course it's dated! But then so must Jaws, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and The Godfather!!!!!! Without movies like Police Story where would Hollywood action be today? PS set standards, many a scene has been stolen for use in other movies. To really fully appreciate it you must see it in widescreen, you miss so much of the movie otherwise (yes, he really does fall off the bus going round the corner!). If you haven't already, SEE THIS MOVIE NOW!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dfbe2feebc3e4524acaf289522d546e6", "input": "Review: Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-beea1de0770049f786e5f222ca809180", "input": "Review: One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and \"Gymkata\" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b31d0c1cbe44b98b7cd82ea3033208c", "input": "Review: i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0953c6c24fd94ab082c339fa6331419a", "input": "Review: This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, \"Double Indemnity,\" is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new \"Double Indemnity\" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.The look of Jack Smight's take on \"Double Indemnity\" is more \"Dynasty\" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 \"Double Indemnity\" should be titled \"10% Indemnity,\" because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d016fa8b4d27420b86df91969be8410b", "input": "Review: If this series supposed to be an improvement over Batman - The Animated Series, I, for one, think it failed terribly. The character drawing is lousy... (Catwoman, for instance, looks awful...) But what really annoyed me is that it made Batman look like a sort of wimp who just can't take care of himself in a battle, without the help of two, even three sidekicks. I mean, he's Batman, for God's sake! I know the comic books, I know that Nightwing and Batgirl are supposed to be Batman's allies, besides Robin, but still... making Batman say that he needs help from them... What, he can't handle a few punches? In BTAS, he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem... He's getting old? Come on...And another thing: I really don't think that Batman would allow a kid like Tim Drake to go into battle that soon, without years of hard training. One, it's irresponsible (and Batman is everything, but irresponsible), and two, it's not what happened in the comics, if we are to remain faithful to them.Batman - The Animated Series made history, with its animation, its stories and its characters... That really was a legend of Batman. The New Adventures series turned the legend into just another Batman flick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-85c7c19016d041b89c4eac9ba6c62168", "input": "Review: Having seen \"Triumph of the Will,\" I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low \"standards\" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as \"bad.\" It would have to improve significantly to attain that status! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a84688bf2f1480dae7694566b0e4981", "input": "Review: The setting and actors make this television movie for me the best rendition of Dickens' classic tale. George C. Scott is very believable as is the rest of the cast. His Scrooge oozes with nastiness until the very end of the movie. Then his character changes to one who is truly repentant. The 19th Century English town chosen for the setting creates an ambiance that is fitting to Dickens and adds to the plausibility of this film. It is a movie I watch every Christmas along with the real Grinch and It's A Wonderful Life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ae9691620ec4c0990ee5a311d727433", "input": "Review: Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-378ba84bdaab47a1b04a75fb4d8088dd", "input": "Review: what can i say. oh yeah those freaking fingers are so weird. they scare the heck out of me. but it is such a funny film, Jim Carrey works the grinch. if you havent already seen it then what you waiting for an invitation. go, go and get watch it. you dont know what your missing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0647918417504513a0f4d92b06a72e50", "input": "Review: I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by \"gems\", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. \"WHAT STRENGTH!\" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.And Mr. Chicken PWNZ. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56e9e88cd4354ad996367cee7cd46f20", "input": "Review: This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable \"Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death\".Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eae392001cef4e1e86cfc7f4f5d4978c", "input": "Review: The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody \"Prison\" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior \"The Chair,\" John Saxon's enjoyably trashy \"Death House,\" the passable psycho picture \"Destroyer,\" and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of \"Hey Micky\" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), \"Slaughterhouse rock\" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime \"Playboy\" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bbdf84c6f1940b4b33009f768de673e", "input": "Review: Belmondo is a tough cop. He goes after a big-time drug dealer (played by Henry Silva, normally a great villain - see \"Sharky's Machine\"; but here he is clearly dubbed, and because of that he lacks his usual charisma). He goes to the scuzziest places of Paris and Marseilles, asks for some names, beats up some people, gets the names, goes to more scuzzy places, asks for more names, beats up more people, etc. The whole movie is punch after punch after punch. It seems that the people who made it had no other ambition than to create the French equivalent of \"Dirty Harry\". Belmondo, who was 50 here, does perform some good stunts at the beginning; apart from those, \"Le Marginal\" is a violent, episodic, trite, shallow and forgettable cop movie. (*1/2) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8cb4da8feb84b829b26e04d3645d028", "input": "Review: The words \"Swedish\" and \"Action movie\" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no \"ups\", just \"downs\". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the \"cool\" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.I rate this 4/10 for effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d52133212b2149d1975c985f5b7d9fe1", "input": "Review: In \"Anne of Green Gables\" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of \"Alice\" shorts who later would adopt her character's name). Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.In fact Anne is the original \"Teenage Drama Queen\" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists. Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: \"If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me\". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard. Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa95e6ec56504630b41591eab744b9f2", "input": "Review: You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for \"Bushy Bill\" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking \"pay-dirt\" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of \"Aqua Velva\" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe \"Leaves\" the \"Island\" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cae5e6450fc443148f4cb2ce64fafe5e", "input": "Review: I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!1/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-141d07a87b104d84b6c30313a6d57bb2", "input": "Review: When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fc3f9f50b064c6284f2b239d53e321b", "input": "Review: \"Stella\", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and…..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2abcce74e2c245a6aaf81f69a8cccff6", "input": "Review: Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5c53401481e4c0f9a1eae44e8058462", "input": "Review: I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fb312185e3748218a80b08d114663a4", "input": "Review: This comedy with much underlying pain and sadness succeeds where most others fail. There have been many films of this genre with more notable actors attempting to achieve this elusive mixture which haven't come anywhere near the depth and deftness of this one. This is surely because the exceptional cast with outstanding performances by Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy seem so spontaneous that the reality of their characters rapidly grip your interest and emotions and hold them throughout the film. At first, the action seems rather off-the-wall and harebrained but one gradually learns that these two rather pathetic damaged people are desperately and unwillingly trying to heal themselves, even if grudgingly, through each other. Rogers' heartrending facial expressions of numb hurt and Sheedy's angry outbursts are so eloquent that one feels them as one observes them. You will care about these two likable but deeply suffering people and hope that they will succeed because it's in doubt and all hangs on a tenuous emotional thread. Hopefully audiences will get to see more of Reg Rogers and Ally Sheedy as this film proves their merit as very accomplished actors beyond doubt. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa061467f9bb4a04b976ec29f539f80e", "input": "Review: Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e753d6a5d654a529d124708548d0a3f", "input": "Review: The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d982da0d9d34d8e8cd0de4181256320", "input": "Review: I love this film 'Spring and port wine'. I was born in Leigh, a town about 7 miles away from Bolton, I moved to Bolton in 1965 when I was 20. My place of work was daily via Little Lever through Farnworth, sometimes on a bike but then by car when I could afford it.The film brings back all the memories of the working class neighbors who were almost always broke but who would always help you if they could. Fred Dibnah was round the corner from Bromwich St. were my bedsit was. If you didn't see the film when first released then you may be forgiven for comparing it to a soap such as Coronation St, well I agree it is a soap, but then, it was called 'Kitchen Sink Drama!' Watch this film for the talented cast who shortly afterwards became household names from frequent roles on TV, I watch mainly for the shots of the locality and the feel good factor of people being poor but happy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-18137c455f0143a5bc12b0b6394006fe", "input": "Review: Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-299cf478a04f44238fe3934eab3ba5bb", "input": "Review: How anyone can say this is bad is beyond me. I loved this show before I even saw it. For 3 reasons, 1. The Story intrigued me, 2. Jessica Alba and 3. James Cameron! Please ignore the bad comments and Please watch the whole first Season before you decide that it's bad because I know that if you watch the first Season you will LOVE it and go out and Buy Season 1 as well as Season 2 on DVD and then Join the campaign to get Season 3 Made!I Hate Fox and I'm sure a lot of you \"Dark Angel\" fans hate them too. They have a thing for Canning Good Shows! Don't you all agree? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf6db752a1184d7591a7273854632576", "input": "Review: For what it is, \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of \"street\" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e28f56c00e32479baf6b3722c9026367", "input": "Review: The Finnish version of Robert Altman's \"Short Cuts\", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the \"routines\" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af229726f908415ab42ccaf67a3bc206", "input": "Review: An excellent documentry. I personally remember this growing up in NYC in the early 80's. This movie is for anyone that wasn't around during that time period.This shows the one thing the African American Gay Underclass felt was solely theirs and the love and camadrie you see is real. The people are real and sadly few are still alive as this is being written. The balls are still held but not to the extent that they were in the the nineteen eighties. That time is gone forever. This is a good pre \"homo thug\" movie. When Queens were really proud to be extroverts. Goodbye to Storyville this is another era gone but greatly documented all hail film! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f564aba3f68e4d65b9a2c2bbc4836978", "input": "Review: I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since \"Beverly Hills Cop\" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d2c563c42cf487baf7604eed0b7b55b", "input": "Review: I am so appalled by this documentary. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed by the way Puertoricans were portrayed. This documentary was not about the culture of Puertoricans. It was about the culture of Nuyoricans. Puertoricans and Nuyoricans are two different cultures. Very different cultures and should not be generalized to the Puerto Rican population. Rosie, before you make a documentary, you need to do the research. You also need to check and make sure your sources are credible. Puerto Ricans are not all loud and they do have class, which is one thing the documentary lacked to show. When I saw Rosie and Jimmie on the View and Rosie on Martha Stewart I was very excited about watching. I even made sure to let my parents know since they love Puerto Rico so much. After the first five minutes I could not believe how the documentary bashed the US and made Puerto Ricans look like a bunch of guinea pigs. You need to go and visit Puerto Rico and you will see that Puerto Rico is not a 3rd world country where more than 50% of the population is in poverty. Puerto Rico has colleges and well known Universities, roads, cars, shopping centers, malls (The largest Kmart and JCPenney's I've ever seen), restaurants, theaters, beaches, hotels(Ritz, Hilton,etc.), casinos, churches, agriculture, Auto Expresso, and restaurants just to name a few. Poverty? NOT 50% of the population is. Puerto Rican culture is about family, music, food, celebrating, and trying to move forward not backward. Oh, and new cousins don't just pop up out of no where. No that is not a Puerto Rican thing, that is a ghetto thing. We are not bastards. Parents of Puertorican descent who would like to teach their children about Puerto Rico should invest in a trip with the family so they can see first hand what Puerto Rico is all about. They will see its beauty, people and culture. Please don't show them this documentary because it will only cloud their minds with negativity. Oh, and please don't tell your American friends to watch this documentary because it will only make the Puertorican people look ignorant.Yes, I am born and raised PUERTO RICAN from the island. Just so you know! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c95feb651024249a659f9ac3e8730a1", "input": "Review: I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.CD Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65573f4cd79c4a51a0c8df84b086109e", "input": "Review: I saw this at the premiere in MelbourneIt is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself \"this is the best I could have done with the material\".Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.Such is life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d294c3175a6c44538269a1e60cb2f532", "input": "Review: The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of \"Use the Force Luke\" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go \"TinTin, I am your Uncle\" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac50b6e13275479bb17ef71351ec09b2", "input": "Review: It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cfedde693b7a4b3eb45ffc0368c47fec", "input": "Review: Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4854c5986db54225959d07170b3ce586", "input": "Review: This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21625c402bb040e9894f58642d406bdc", "input": "Review: By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish. It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation. This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20c30ca862454f4b8f7e41da05ab6df1", "input": "Review: It has been said that Deanna Durbin invented teenagery. This first film was one of the best. The humorous story presented a delightful 14 year old Deanna, a little beauty with a gorgeous voice, as the \"Miss Fixit\" in a family split by divorce. For plot summary, see other IMDb entries, but quickly Deanna and her two older sisters plan to go to America from Switzerland to prevent their father from remarrying. With an excellent supporting cast especially Barbara Read and Nan Grey as the sisters, good direction and editing, the film succeeds in captivating one even on subsequent viewings. Of Deanna's three songs, only \"Il Bacio\" is from the classical repertoire, but when she sings it in that police station scene, the film's place in history is assured. At least it was for this viewer who at the age of 15 was smitten for life with both Deanna and classical music. One of the many nice touches that occur throughout THREE SMART GIRLS is the brief glimpse of the drunk stretching his neck for a final glimpse of Deanna as the cops hustle him by! One unfortunate result of the success of this film was that subsequent writers for Durbin vehicles became locked into the \"Miss Fixit\" theme, which quickly became stale. Deanna herself never did. Her stature as an actress is more questionable than her charisma, which she certainly had. It seems to me that, like many another film personality, she substituted \"naturalness\" for the histrionic ability that she lacked. The ploy worked well for 21 feature films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-20051b8d382a49359a2dded874306462", "input": "Review: An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !! After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade. This movie was a moderate box office hit. A must-see for discerning movie fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-92cd3f11391b4bba9f1821450343497d", "input": "Review: This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c66dae599a0f4e2a845fb97e4549198a", "input": "Review: SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f23c8e307a2e45d08b1363e817b6d1ed", "input": "Review: This, \"Prodigal Son\" and \"Eastern Condors\" are my favourite Sammo Hung films. The Fat Dragon is fatter in this outing than he was in \"Condors\", but he's no less sure-footed as director or actor. He is, in fact, at the top of his form and delivers a devastating, brutal actioner that boasts half a dozen amazing sequences and manages to tell a compassionate, sweet love story also. Love and romance are not the director's priorities here, but they serve as curious adjuncts to the action, and insure that viewers don't hit the fast-forward button between the physical clashes.The opening scene, which features a funny light sabre duel, sets a solid but deceptive tone. A sequence in which Sammo's pedicab is chased by a car is beautifully staged and sweetened with a sharp, comic tone. The fast and furious stick fight between Sammo and Lau Kar Leung is a model of dazzling choreography and sharp, superb direction, and easily one of the best ever of its type. The film's violence escalates slowly until, finally, when the climactic showdown comes, we are subjected to some of the most brutal altercations ever seen in a Sammo production. The director/actor's assault on Billy Chow and a house filled with angry, menacing opponents is a bone-cracking, physically punishing delight.Terrific on every level and one of the best martial arts movies ever made.Great score, too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d58ded3c98242f38f733aacaa4eee08", "input": "Review: Early Hollywood at it's best!! A classic Kipling poem is transformed into an epic adventure featuring memorable performances by a stellar cast. I think the measure of a good film is how many times you can watch it and still genuinely enjoy it. I've seen it a dozen times and still cry at the end and, admit it, you do too!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-226475d334fa419698714372d3e1d7cb", "input": "Review: The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f5b894793b0445ab36ae546234e1506", "input": "Review: This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say \"daarling\" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said \"it\". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-185fdf9f0f9e4d55b1fe4a791a5ac3f5", "input": "Review: Yes, the plot is predictable; yes, there are a few plot holes; yes, it has a made-for-TV quality; and yes, Britney Spears \"wrote\" the book with obvious self-promotion.But forget all of that... this movie is fun.Fun in an After School Special sort-of-way, but fun nevertheless.Virginia Madsen as the mother does a great job... so good that I'm going to start watching for her movies. She reminded me of Diane Lane for all the good reasons.The rest of the cast does a fine job, too. If I was a casting agent, I'd be scouting some of these young actors.The production values are above usual TV standards and the music was really great... better than several big-budget movies I've seen.If you're in the mood for German noir this movie isn't for you. If you want a safe, fun and underrated movie, this is a good one. It's one you could show to your 10 year old daughter but enjoy it yourself too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2ec7d803968484f8ee9231a1dccaca7", "input": "Review: Mary Pickford (\"Born on the Fourth of July\" as Angela Moore) is \"The Little American\" (of French heritage); she falls in love with Jack Holt (as Karl Von Austreim), who had moved to America with his German father and American mother. French-American Raymond Hatton (as Count Jules de Destin of the \"Fighting Destins\") has fallen in love with Ms. Pickford. The love triangled threesome eventually wind up in France, with the Great War (World War I, in hindsight) complicating their lives considerably.A mostly entertaining, if propagandistically flawed, Cecil B. DeMille film. The torpedoing, and sinking, of a ship carrying Pickford is \"Titanic\"-like. The war intrigue gets dramatic as Pickford slowly becomes an undercover spy for France, while the Germans occupy her ancestral home. Of course, German lover Holt arrives. It was difficult to believe they took so long to recognize each other as he moved in for the rape, but it was dark; and, prior events had them believe each other dead. The film goes WAY over-the-top in its symbolism. Pickford was, by the way, Canadian - though, few could deny she wasn't a \"Little American\", for all intents and purposes.FUN to spot \"extras\" who later became major stars include Wallace Beery, Colleen Moore, and Ramon Novarro - especially, watch for Mr. Novarro exhibiting \"star\" quality during one of the film's more memorable sequences: Pickford and the wounded soldier saluting each other as he is taken by her on a stretcher. Novarro even gets Mary Pickford to write a letter for him; obviously, he's got a future in pictures. Also future-bound is Ben Alexander, who plays the boy \"Bobby\"; he becomes a dependable child actor, and grows up to become a Jack Webb partner on \"Dragnet\". ******* The Little American (7/12/17) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Mary Pickford, Jack Holt, Raymond Hatton Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48c8061b1ace46ba8bb02af88c3bc2b7", "input": "Review: While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.Plain and simple.Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_> Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca7f97b8ea7b437285af67d52e6a83c9", "input": "Review: 'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9bc65e6b31a42d992e286f5dbe4feb1", "input": "Review: This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78e0e110a6b34922bd056a954f0804c9", "input": "Review: Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... \"exterminator\" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable \"exterminator\" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days. The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3838ca4396e44f54b6b719cb398cfb94", "input": "Review: Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08ebd65a4ed2490491731647c0fba245", "input": "Review: This film, in my opinion, is, despite it's flaws (which I maintain are *few*), an utter masterpiece and a great and glorious piece of art.What Mr. Bakshi has done here is to create an utterly beautiful film and has shown his immense talent and versatility as a director of animated films. He does not receive 1/100th of the credit he deserves for literally saving the art of animation for an adult audience. If it were not for Mr. Bakshi, I don't believe animation would have survived the Disney onslaught. What is more, with The Lord of the Rings, he has not only created a beautiful animated film, but he has created an entirely new art form - unfortunately one that never quite made it off the ground.Most people will complain about the use of rotoscoping in the film (the use of live action images which are used as background images and often animated over using various techniques from what appears to be small amounts of tinting to full blown animation). But I feel that the people who complain about it simply cannot accept an art form which is out of the norm. No, this is not Disney animation. No it's not live action. No, it's not \"cheating\" - what it is is a new, fascinating, and absolutely wonderful art form. Something so fresh, and so new that it feels completely at home in such a fantastic tale as \"The Lord of the Rings\". Bakshi's pioneering use of this technique brings the subtleties of Middle Earth to life is a very dark and mysterious way, in particular, the darker of Tolkien's creatures, particularly the Nazgul, are realized in a way that traditional animation or live action have not been able to accomplish.Peter S. Beagle's screenplay (based very little, as I understand it, on an early draft by Chris Conkling) is a very loyal adaptation of Tolkien's works. Where possible he uses dialogue directly out of the novel and it feels at home in the world which Bakshi has created. There are many cuts that were made to fit the first book and 3/4 into a single 2 hour 15 minute film, but there are very few changes to the storyline. There are a few holes which it would have been nice to have filled: The reforging of Narsil, the gifts of Galadriel, the Huorns at the battle of the Hornburg, but, again, with the time limitations he had (already the longest animated feature in history), these are certainly understandable (though it makes one wonder how they could have been explained in a sequel).Also there is the delightful (one of my favorites) score by Leonard Rosenman (who also scored Barry Lyndon and Star Trek IV (the score for which is clearly based on his LotR work)). It is bombastic and audacious and, dare I say, perfect. It stands on it's own as an orchestral triumph, but when coupled with the images of the film, it enters a whole new world of symphonic perfection. So far from the typical Hollywoodland fare that it turns many people off.The voice actors are wonderful. Of particular note is John Hurt as Aragorn who just oozes the essence of Strider.The character design is also wonderfully unique, though not often to everyone's taste. But remember that it is the duty of the director of an adaptation to show you what he/she imagines, not what you might have imagined, and so Aragorn is realized with a distinctive Native American feel and Boromir appears in Viking inspired garb. This is perhaps not what you imagined, but I can only applaud Mr. Bakshi for showing us what he \"saw\". It also might be noted that he spent a significant amount of time with Priscilla Tolkien in developing the character outfits for the film.One farther word - the Flight to the Ford sequence, in my opinion, is one of the most subtlety beautiful sequences ever to be caught on celluloid. Bakshi is not afraid to slow down the pace for a moment, and his mastery is clearly shown by the incredible tension is able to build. Bakshi's artistic ability and Tolkien's incredible work fuse in this sequence to a glorious peak which has yet to be equaled.The recent DVD release (2001) by Warner Brothers, is sorely lacking. While we can offer our eternal thanks that the film is finally available in widescreen format, the package is woefully short of extras. How glorious it would have been to have had a director's commentary, been able to see the 20 minutes of extra footage that were removed for the theatrical release. Another delightful addition could have been the assembled the live action footage which was later animated over. Also present in the DVD release is the utterly horrible voiceover at the end of the film which is a departure from the simple voiceover which occurred in the very final frames of the film. This version is plastered and poorly rendered right over the musical climax of the score.Of course, the greatest tragedy of all is that the sequel was never made. We will never be able to see Bakshi's interpretation of Gondor, of Shelob, of Faramir, of the Cracks of Doom, of Eowyn's battle with the Witch King or Gandalf's confrontation with him. We will never be graced with Bakshi's image of Denethor or the Palatir or the Paths of the Dead. It is a shame beyond all shames that we will, in the end, have to accept Peter Jackson's glitz and glitter Hollywood, action film version of these later events in Tolkien's masterpiece, but, I suppose even that is better than having no cinematic version at all.David Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a35a94679e1d4db586f8fb86f9c5f466", "input": "Review: Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by \"the Pulse,\" it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-870cee93e7f6480096e646af0841f62a", "input": "Review: I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with \"old opera singers\" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.Larry from Illinois Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8b45196343744d2a5c5d9ddc32b8a25", "input": "Review: No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48074e0eca5d462481f0e6f157124241", "input": "Review: Did you ever wonder how far one movie could go? Schizophreniac relentlessly explores the world of the extreme with Harry Russo. Harry is an aggravated writer, killer and drug addict scumbag who will stop at nothing to destroy those who stand between him and insanity. Driven by the demonic voices of his ventriloquist dummy rubberneck, Harry begins his killing spree. From director Ron Atkins comes the 1st installment of the vilest story ever to be filmedThe only other movie I have seen similar to this would happen to be the 2nd installment entitled Schizophreniac NecromaniacThis is a really low budget film and will not be for everyone, but if you are looking for something disturbing, different and horrific then this would make a fine choice.DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING LIKE MODERN DAY HORROR (Such as Scream)Viewer discretion is advised Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbd991ad6f244a9aa1bb77bf556a6421", "input": "Review: Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointlessThe twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51dd4b9d456c4f628ab390821d3da383", "input": "Review: In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a \"thinking man's horror film.\" Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.Even in the dream world things are boring.A short no on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d22b3555055f4dc6ac1ea28d8d868098", "input": "Review: i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like \"Cats\" .... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0004a67dff64f029897506ab8ca4650", "input": "Review: For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2d7308d7b4c4d2c8e04b2e8a7836e48", "input": "Review: When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only \"good \"part.Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-650aef0bdb5c4e8e83f8d91135437d7e", "input": "Review: Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm – and respect from the fans – lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their \"early\" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song \"Mistress of the Dark\" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.And in 1988, after films like \"Fright Night\" and \"TerrorVision\" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: \"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark\", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch \"Elvira's Haunted Hills\" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the \"Naked Gun\" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point (\"Killer Party\", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly (\"Saturday the 14th\"). Although \"Elvira\" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... \"Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel\"! But if you haven't seen \"Atomic Cyborg\", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f641ebaaf93042ba8b2f04240819bca7", "input": "Review: Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the \"hot\" popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-17fee9310b964bf0b40c91b8248c403d", "input": "Review: After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. \"10 Items\" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned \"Lost In...\" seems to stretch out over a few long days.I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e38a6d8ff484933bbae6126ba2a86e4", "input": "Review: I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made \"monsters\" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it \"corny\" but i consider it \"classic\" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44b2be19ef054cec92f0a7601636159e", "input": "Review: Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d95f5166c3984b22b33d484f415d7780", "input": "Review: An excellent example of \"cowboy noir\", as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, \"Lyle from Dallas\" (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before.\"Red Rock West\" gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly \"logical or credible\", the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3b1c71259174367b005762684772fd9", "input": "Review: My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-25f66ddc50e64c69ae2feafbe8efa6ca", "input": "Review: I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the \"actors\", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.Watching this \"film\" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes \"KaZaam\" look like a Meryl Streep film.I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-485631166b4e413d832e74031f8f96b5", "input": "Review: Following the success of \"Paris, Je T'Aime\", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.Sadly, however, while \"Paris, Je T'Aime\" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of \"New York, I Love You\" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-470359d12ac941d9aeedaa749878924b", "input": "Review: It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- \"Rage of the Werewolf\", \"Werewolf Tales\" and so on.\"Blood of the Werewolf\" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, \"Blood Reunion\", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.The second story, \"Old Blood\", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.And finally we have \"Manbeast\", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the \"twist\" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41795a28c26a44e39ff33e7b89afb5f9", "input": "Review: I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-afebd5929ce24d5eaef0a9b0828811a0", "input": "Review: I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b28da8bdc88d4f73901124578dcea580", "input": "Review: Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers! Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d819a5f5dad4a8987cd4d0206038ec9", "input": "Review: The acting is bad ham, ALL the jokes are superficial and the target audience is clearly very young children, assuming they have below average IQs. I realize that it was meant for kids, but so is Malcom in the Middle, yet they still throw in adult humor and situations.What should we expect from a show lead by Bob Saget, the only comedian in existence who is less funny than a ball hitting a man's groin, which is probably why he stopped hosting America's Funniest Home Videos.Parents, do not let your kids watch this show unless you want to save money on college. Expose your kids to stupidity and they will grow up dumberer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d75a50be99044799eb265d43116645c", "input": "Review: Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a \"I need you, you need me\" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess – the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police \"encounter\" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role – a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-917ec1bafd434cfb8fb73e897cad6436", "input": "Review: This movie is to Halloween what the hilarious \"Christmas Story\" is to Christmas: both are relatively low-budget, no-big-name-stars type films...and both are two of the absolute greatest and funniest movies available, both seasonal CLASSICS!!! \"Spaced Invaders\" comes galloping out right from the start with warmth and humor and a superb cast of characters...all five goofy Martians, Klembecker the Realtor, Russell the deputy, Vern at the \"fuel dispensing depot\" and so many more! You just have to see this movie to believe it, and, like \"Christmas Story\", it just keeps getting better and better with each viewing, and you pick up on fun little things each time!! MOST DEFINITELY A TEN!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-113121ade647466ebc3dd21e9dfb8d97", "input": "Review: If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -\"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad\".Yes it could.I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b8167987f604b0899fb3432ddd9cbc4", "input": "Review: This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as \"Michael J Fox\" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of \"Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?\"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50c84f7833894d09b698defa9553b0f4", "input": "Review: In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22b907f2377346ebbf5c55ac8b8bd2de", "input": "Review: The Sarah Silverman program is very similar to Sarah's own stand up; It's so over the top with prejudice that you can't possibly take it to heart. The fact is, though, that while most all people will \"get it,\" it doesn't mean they will all appreciate it. It's a very polarizing and one dimensional show, so if you don't like it after 10 minutes, you may as well give up there. If you do like it after 10 minutes, stay tuned, because every episode thus far has been as good as the last.Like all shows, though, it is not perfect. Personally I love the program, but there are some huge faults with it. Racist songs are funny, but get older a lot faster than Silverman seems to realize--a problem that I had with \"Jesus is Magic\" as well. It seems as if Silverman gave herself a quota for songs per episode that doesn't need to exist. Not to mention that while the lyrics to the songs she writes are good, the music, well, isn't.Another thing to keep in mind is that while this show will for some reason appeal to fans of Monty Python, Upright Citizens Brigade, etc., it is nothing like those shows. I can watch Monty Python all day, but, as much as I like this show, I can't watch more than the half hour limit at a time. It gets flat very fast. The repeat value for this show is low too--the second time around an episode is fairly funny, and by the third time, in my opinion, it's boring.Still, that first time around is very, very funny. Give it a shot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8dc9a193e6eb4a998b72bc10bff935d2", "input": "Review: Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5dbeae784f340c39eead1691da7fa08", "input": "Review: honestly, if anyone has a brain, there's not 1 positive thingto say about this movie what so ever. I lost my $1 renting this. I'd rather laugh at Will Smith saying \"If you got a dream, you got to protect it\". all the actors must've been bored or had no fame at the time. even Matthew Mc Conahay *however you spell it* was better then all the actors in this movie, when he played a psycho in Texas Chainsaw 4. If you see this movie, and have anything good to say, you IQ, must be extremely low, with such bad taste in movies, it hurts. Thank YOU...and the TRUTH, has been spoken!Save yourself from the misery. Get Devil's Rejects, now that's a classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fc0de0894144baf99c5992dc45e4a9a", "input": "Review: Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from \"Knife In the Water\" up till \"The Tenant\", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own \"Repulsion\" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. \"The Tenant\" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. \"The Tenant\" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both \"Repulsion\" and \"Rosemary's Baby\", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5396f605a5404977b2d92419d03a28da", "input": "Review: I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective \"jump\" moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The \"edge of dreamland\" muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile (\"Cujo\"?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, \"I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at\" look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the \"Witch Mountain\" movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about \"Blade Runner\". :-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06480fdf33654d94be91cc2bbf707505", "input": "Review: This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58efa78c939c4d9b8f1d4347bf9c36fb", "input": "Review: For starters, \"Hobgoblins\" tries to ape the more successful \"Gremlins\". That's bad enough but they don't even try to make anything that closely resembles a movie here. Instead, it's more like a bargain basement, everything-must-go clearance of embarrassing scenes, inappropriate sound FX, acting as bland as unflavored tapioca and a script that takes everything humans hold sacred in their motion pictures and throws 'em down the old tube-aroo.The plot? Grrrr.... Meddling kids track down gremlin-like creatures from movie lot before they kill people by projecting their fantasies. Sound cool, does it? Well, see that wall on the other side of your room? Run right at it, top speed, face first. See, THAT is cooler than this movie.You dare to doubt? Quick, name something else one of the leads has been in other than this. What other scripts have the writers done since \"Hobgoblins\"? Name another Rick Sloane directoral effort. How many \"Hobgoblins\" action figures do you have? See? THANK you.I cannot believe I took so long to write about such a horrible film. I'd rather write about more important things; like the separation of church and state, economic restructuring in Europe, that kind of thing. But no, \"Hobgoblins\" it is and it is bad - bad like your grandparents' wallpaper, bad as pink flamingos on your lawn, bad like underwear that says \"Home of the Whopper\"...and I think we'll stop there.Well, Mike and the robots fight valiantly but try as they might, they can do only so much with \"Hobgoblins\" before they realize that, yes, the director DOES need kicked in the shin.Real, real hard.One star for \"Hobgoblins\", seven stars for the MST3K version. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c847f399355470397f038a67bfe667b", "input": "Review: I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of \"adult\" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7520dc96348948f7ba04caba21baf503", "input": "Review: Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30c632a5bb1b4466bb4ddde2f6f37167", "input": "Review: Joan Fontaine here is entirely convincing as an amoral beauty who is entirely incapable of feeling love for anyone but herself. Her husband (Richard Ney) has lost all his money through a combination of his foolhardiness and her extravagance, and they are reduced to living in a tiny room, with little or no prospects. They continue to put on the most amazing clothes and go out and socialize as if nothing were wrong. He is a charming, feckless, but wholly amiable fellow. However, Fontaine decides he has to go, as he has outlived his usefulness. So she resolves to poison him when she realizes he does not want to divorce her, so that she can move on. She has meanwhile had a lover (Patric Knowles) whom she decides to drop because he is not rich either. She meets the aging Herbert Marshall, who has a yacht with all the trimmings and more money than even Fontaine could figure out how to spend. She targets him and decides he will do nicely. He is all too eager to be eaten up by the young beauty. He certainly isn't very exciting, and has about as much sex appeal as yesterday's omelette. But Fontaine is one of those gals who has eyes only for money, and the man standing between her and it is transparent, so that she doesn't even notice or care what he looks like, she looks through him and sees what she really wants and goes for it. She proceeds to poison her husband, and dispatches him very neatly and satisfactorily, so that everything is going well. But as always happens in the movies, and sometimes even in life, some unexpected things begin to go wrong, and the tension rises appreciably, so that Fontaine begins to sweat. Fontaine is particularly good at looking wicked and terrified, and as the net begins to close in on her, her rising sense of desperation is palpable and has us on the edges of our seats. Hysteria and fear take over from cool calculation and cunning. But she finds a fall guy for her crime in the person of her cast off lover, who is an innocent victim of her scheme to set him up. He is condemned to death for murder, because the husband's death by poison came to light unexpectedly. But Sir Cedric Hardwicke, playing a grimly determined Scotland yard inspector, thinks there may be something amiss, and begins to doubt the story and suspect Fontaine. He closes in on her, and some of the scenes as this happens are inspired portrayals of the wildest panic. But will the innocent man's life be saved before he is executed? Will Fontaine worm her way out of this one? Will Herbert Marshall protect her to safeguard his infatuation? This film is expertly directed by Sam Wood, and the film is a really superb suspense thriller which I suppose qualifies very well for the description of a superior film noir. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f7b75a93bec4e62bfefd3b3d93e9646", "input": "Review: Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.You must see this movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc68a11f30384a868d8e6f5e2e2533fa", "input": "Review: Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book \"Even Cowgirls Get the Blues\" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.I suggest reading the book! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b1da679b2814c6abc87ad36bd0d981a", "input": "Review: This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen… I don't really know why… Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way… I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't… Just don't waste your time on this one… Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d830167e43345e687582b8364198840", "input": "Review: I.Q., in my opinion, is a sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you. If you ask me, James (Stephen Fry) really was a dull guy. To me, Ed (Tim Robbins) was more suited for Catherine (Meg Ryan) than James was. Anyway, everyone involved in this film did an absolutely outstanding job. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this sweet, charming, and hilarious romantic comedy about finding the right person for you to any Tim Robbins or Meg Ryan fan who hasn't seen it. You're in for lots of laughter, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2df086f5f21b4a4eb659bc55eb95ba3b", "input": "Review: A typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no \"coming of age\" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1359507197ea44a9990b47bc5b075eeb", "input": "Review: The ENTIRE MOVIE is flashbacks from the first Boogeyman movie as well as, inexplicably, footage from another Uli Lommel / Suzanna Love film Brainwaves. It is framed with some more current (from the early 90's anyway) footage that is boring, poorly acted and cheaply shot. Not only is the film almost completely flashbacks, they REPEAT the same flashbacks throughout the film. So you see the recycled footage over and over again, as if you hadn't seen it already. As if the originals weren't bad enough. I've never seen a movie so padded.... Someone was milking the last dollar out of these films. Total ripoff. And talk about padding... why do I have to write 10 lines about this trash? If I can convey that it's garbage in 2 lines, that should be enough. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5feb3f60bdc429296a179e7d238bb2b", "input": "Review: I saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the \"energy used to make the movie\" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions \"Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?\" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fd1a6467b2a424c8e3a3f494c5883e9", "input": "Review: Poor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.My question is: \"Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae0752ff2e854c3ab36a6273cb067457", "input": "Review: Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as \"The Nazis - A warning From History\", \"Blitz\" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. \"Britain At War In Colour\", with its companion series \"Japan\", \"Germany\" and \"America\" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d388d3096ad4b5ca0862236785c0b60", "input": "Review: Although I had seen \"Gymkata\" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of \"Parmistan\" to enter and hopefully win \"The Game,\" a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like \"Yak Power.\" The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b58bd7a327fd4f378855446173ffdf79", "input": "Review: I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-013138611cae4f4499f36441287e036a", "input": "Review: No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating \"An American Werewolf in London,\" disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in \"Happy Days\" & \"Laverne & Shirley\" combined.The one woman who elevates this movie to the \"so bad, it's good\" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a \"hot chick\" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. \"Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell.\" She wasn't kidding.This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, \"Teen Wolf\" was better than this. \"Teen Wolf Too\" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8307cb1aef624c1a8943bfa0a655cde5", "input": "Review: Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f215d720b25c4c6e9ceef85de4bd7e51", "input": "Review: How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem \"clichéd\", but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are \"cute funny\", purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2835356d6cb747a7a57aa8d698984015", "input": "Review: This was stupid funny movie.. Cheech and Chong are the dopiest wasted guys ever... i rate this film a 7.. but if you like this one then go see Jay and Silentbob! There funnier and crazier. Now Cheech is a sellout working on kids movies..... wheres chong? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96cdff44816844478a8ab3f08ff7f85e", "input": "Review: This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94de87b3a71f4212992cb045045d3fb6", "input": "Review: MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½* Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence) By Blake French: \tBelieve it or not, in the new John Warren comedy \"MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS\" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said. This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny. How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in \"Air Bud: Golden Receiver,\" and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least \"Air Bud\" was family oriented. \"Major League Back to the Minors\" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?\tThe film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own \"buddy comedy routine\" muttering one liners to themselves like \"They suck,\" \"This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass,\" \"This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind,\" \"Somebody needs a nap,\" and \"ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play.\" Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.\t\"Major League Back to the minors\" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: \"You're too old, too slow, and too fat.\" The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money. So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-971a3363224946c7bebc21e8c658b42c", "input": "Review: I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa6272d990474685a9a1d2bd9a9e6e19", "input": "Review: I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fdfe1a6cd9a4cc68d053b7524ee7ed4", "input": "Review: The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. \"Daddy's going hunting,\" The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friendsThe following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!- Alan \"Skip\" Bannacheck Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f31e93d37d8e4aea83d71f38e5eb4c2b", "input": "Review: I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to \"get into\" the movie.I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-437e61402a7343a2ba1cdef045c1f16e", "input": "Review: This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although itwas a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richardswas again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie andjudge it yourself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b13ad67a250946f49e123ce68debc5ad", "input": "Review: I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like \"lame plot\" and \"it's much cruder than the show.\" Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a2e86a593b14608a6a9bc4fc0c3afb6", "input": "Review: Final Score: 0 (out of 10)***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat. But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about \"Whipped\" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the \"star\" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or \"twist\", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the \"idea\" that an empowered women can play men \"just as they get played\". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent \"In the Company of Men\" - or better yet, \"There's Something About Mary\". This movie wants to be a \"edgier\" version of \"There's Something About Mary\" so bad you can see the sweat. The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as \"satirical\" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: \"F**k you\" Character 2: \"Oh yeah, well f**k you\" (repeat)And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. \"Whipped\" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at \"the marquee scene\", \"cult classic\" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides. But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like \"Friends\" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. \"Whipped\" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products. The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c2aa8b05b4642c0a6247de6dcc95fbf", "input": "Review: 'The second beginning' as it's title explains, shows us the beginning of the end for the human race. Set long before the matrix existed, this short anime written by the Wachowski's shows us the world that could lay infront of us in the not to distant future, set at the turn of the 21st century, the second renaissance delves into issues common with human behaviour; greed, power, control, vanity etc.The use of robots or artificial intellegence as slaves or servents is common among science fiction/fantasy stories. The second renaissance is no exeption to this concept, however instead of a simple man vs. machine layout, this story explains the struggle that the machines put up with, the struggle for acceptance in a world ruled by humans. Where the matrix films show us the human perspective, these short animations tell both sides of the story.The second renaissance part 1 + 2, answer many questions brought up by the original Matrix film, such as how the war broke out, how the sky was blackend, what led to the use of humans as batteries and it also introduces us to the machine city called 01, which may have relevance to the upcoming Matrix Revolutions film.I won't give away too much of the story, as I do not want to ruin the experience for perspective viewers, however, I will recommend it to anybody interested in the world of the matrix or simply anybody interested in Japanese animation (anime).9/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94e39e6a040348bf8743931680c0599e", "input": "Review: I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing \"happy ending\" slapped onto the end.All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The \"happy ending\" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - \"The End\". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9b56cb7bca14a1490966dea0cc7b084", "input": "Review: I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e35b894bfa664c0f81c0f0676c899022", "input": "Review: Spoilers I loved the later episodes from college and on, but I wish I could get the last season on DVD. Unfortunately, the latest I could get is the first college season. Still the teenage years were sweet; although they focused a lot on magic, they also made her into a character that teens could relate to, deeling with the stuggles of teens, and children in divorced families. This show was very innocent; they did not get into the morbid teenage problems such as sex and drugs, but they did deel with pressure to fit in. I loved watching her grow up and cope with her magic on her own and trying to convince her Aunts to let go as she left the nest. The older episodes were cute, but it was just so much better to see her as (well not really a teenage witch anymore) but an adult witch. I loved Roxy and Mortgan; they were so talented! In the earlier episodes the Aunts were great actresses, but they were so strict, kind and loving, but they treated her like a young child in some ways, but not in every way. I mean they grounded her for every little mistake she made with her magic, I mean let her learn from her own mistakes for once! That was what I liked about the college episodes; she was able to learn from her own mistakes without be grounded over everything; that was annoying. Not to put down Hilda and Zelda. Melissa Joan Hard is beautiful and was perfect for the Sabrina with her Perky personality. I liked the last episode where she ran off the marry Harvey, but as somebody else said, it would have been nice to see what happened after. I mean I believe it was obvious they were getting married; where else would they be running off to in her wedding dress? But I would have liked to have seen it. I supposed they wanted to leave it up to the viewer to choose the ending though rather than spoon feeding it to us as most comedies do. Somebody said they could have shown them marry and go to school in the house, but they already graduated college. Sabrina had great job for a magazine and I think Harvey had a good job, because he lived in a nice apartment that we only see at the end, but they never say what he does. As a child they always talk about how he does not want to be an exterminator like his Dad. When Sabrian moved into the house that season, they never really explain how it happened. Actually, there is a lot the show does not explain, but I supposed it is supposed to be to leave it up to us and give it some mystery. Prior to Sabrina and her friends moving into the house, they show Hilda getting married and this whole spell that ends up with Zelda turning into a child. Hilda comes back in the last episode (and Zelda is there in some other form, but Beth is not on the episode) but they do not show Zelda's husband or what happened, like did they have children? Maybe they didn't want too much going on in one episode. I also liked Hart's sister who played her spoiled cousin! She was pretty and a great actress and it was interesting to see her grown up! I cannon believe it has been six years since the show went off the air! I still love the reruns! Also, I don't know if anybody noticed this, but in the earlier episodes, the town was called Westbridbe (a made up town I believe, which was supposed to be close to Salem) but in the later episodes, they don't mention the name of the town being caled Westbridge and I think they call it Boston, unless that is just where she worked. Also, I wanted to add, I found the episode, \"Wild Wild Sabrina\" where she is taught about the importance of rules, to be insulting. She was 18 and too old to be grounded; I would have been insulted if my parents grounded me at 18. And I think while an 18 year old might mess up how she did, they need to learn the consequences on their own. I think at 18 they know rules are important. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cd40250608d457390f9d0cd9cc3abb8", "input": "Review: This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-98335aaec7ef4397b92f6e8c3fd85a55", "input": "Review: It's rare that I sit down in front of the TV specifically to watch a particular programme. It's even rarer when I actually enjoy the programme in the end, but Last of the Blonde Bombshells was one of the best movies I think I've seen.A remarkable cast, led by Dame Judi Dench and Ian Holm, and an excellent, witty and poignant script combined to make it a truly rewarding experience. I can't really express how good I thought it was, so I won't try, I'll just say, if you get the opportunity, PLEASE SEE IT!!!! I only hope it comes out on video. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-252adab0413a43e2b80f36f28fb8c00d", "input": "Review: It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32583b9776d34f61bba13d5a74ec6ec9", "input": "Review: I'm not saying that because the production values were so low, but because it was filmed terribly. That shot of the girl washing her hair in the creek? Did we really need to sit there for an overlong shot and watch her do that for 5 minutes in the same spot? It was terrible, the lighting was just plain bad. You could barely see anything and when the characters were talking, you could barely hear what they were saying. Did I watch the whole movie? Of course not I skipped through most of it, and I don't want to hear anyone say I need to watch the whole thing first to judge it. This film was so poorly done and executed that even by independent and low budget standards it's just plain terrible. Awful movie...don't waste any time on it unless you want a good laugh, but even then it's not because of the actors \"funny\" lines, it's because of how painstakingly bad the production is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d03452c953704109bc89202981a20428", "input": "Review: what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-815d1da0a86f4a75975b3d5402b9786c", "input": "Review: Not wishing to give *anything* away here, I would just say this technically excellent, flawlessly acted and uplifting little flic will reward the viewer with an excellent hour and a half's entertainment: It will amuse, surprise, possibly embarrass occasionally and almost certainly tug at the heartstrings from time to time, as it approaches the inevitable, but not obvious, ending without becoming clichéd or predictable in any way. Most definitely recommended.A previous User's Comment gives 8 out of 10 for the film and 10 out of 10 for both Branagh and Bonham-Carter's outstanding performances - I agree entirely.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1f210bfbd594aa395d34c7732e5b777", "input": "Review: As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original \"Frankenstein\" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d59761bef62d45daaa91d8a4b744e118", "input": "Review: Robert Duvall is a direct descendent of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, according the IMDb.com movie database. After seeing this film, you may think Duvall's appearance is reincarnation at it's best. One of my most favorite films. I wish the composer, Peter Rodgers Melnick had a CD or there was a soundtrack available. Wonderful scenery and music and \"all too-true-to-life,\" especially for those of us that live in, or have moved to, the South. This is a \"real moment in time.\" Life moves on, slowly, but \"strangers we do not remain.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55147aaede69491a80643106dbc3ba80", "input": "Review: Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7604a14bfa84469b9e091c74c1bfd625", "input": "Review: Oh dear, what a horrid movie.The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from \"the Natural\", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. A really bad film, a really bad film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-222b1aea9c2d4fd890835c4d29de285b", "input": "Review: The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.The original 1943 novel, called \"The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton\" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6fc9c23fb9a43de9ae172e34ac2bed0", "input": "Review: A very interesting entertainment, with the charm of the old movies. Tarzan faces the greatest perils without hesitation if the moment requires it, and we all enjoy with him his success.The most insteresting for me is a man without special powers facing the problems and beating them just with human skills (he was a great swimmer and had a great shout) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-683d53adbb1c4f119b68b3ac54adacf9", "input": "Review: Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d58e284ed784fe484aad0da62796f81", "input": "Review: I saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the \"energy used to make the movie\" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions \"Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?\" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e914c12dd4ba4edab9c9304e80b65cef", "input": "Review: Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aacbe6c78328463994baae2b1fb63f1f", "input": "Review: I saw the film twice in the space of one week, both times the at a cinema in Orpington, Kent, UK. The place was packed both times and people had to be turned away. From the start of the film with Henry Winkler getting 'injured' on the football field the whole audience was in uproar with laughter, laughter that lasted until the credits.For those who love American wrestling this film is a must, but be ready to see Henry Winkler as you have never seen him before. Also look out for a very well known actor whose trademark wrestling move is a head-but!If you get a chance watch this movie and it is family comedy entertainment at its best! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19bb24c8672b4affadae2097c5b551d6", "input": "Review: In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy \"comic relief\" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52c0bd5a10564720b6aab806821a140e", "input": "Review: I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-039819fb9a834a91bd669cbad661cb46", "input": "Review: Fot the most part, this movie feels like a \"made-for-TV\" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the \"Semetary.\" There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1335ff98d88547eda9a835bbe2bea00f", "input": "Review: Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision – the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them – while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the \"demons\" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: \"This is our job now, son. We've got to do this.\" When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, \"If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this.\" The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-11fc5217785143e8aac2a12c0d6a1561", "input": "Review: The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, \"Love in Paris\", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8009ab4cbaf14015991d9b28b36e9879", "input": "Review: The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0642111462e5497db2ada3f645c03486", "input": "Review: When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of \"Basic Instinct\" and some maybe of \"Showgirls\". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: \"De Vierde Man\". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. \"De Vierde Man\" makes even \"Basic Instinct\" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbc9a347cb004876bb63d00ecffbfcad", "input": "Review: I just don't understand why this movie is getting beat-up in here. Jeez. It is mindless, it isn't polished and it is (as I am reading) wasted on some. The cast of this movie plays their characters to the 'T' (If you watched Permanent Midnight and became a Ben Stiller fan then yes you will be disappointed). These are misunderstood, well-intentioned misfits trying to save the city/world with nothing but grit and determination. The problem is they don't realize their limits until the big showdown and that's the point! This is 3 times the movie that The Spy Who Shagged Me was yet gets panned by the same demographic group, likely the same people who feel the first AP movie pales in comparison to the sequel. I just don't get it. The jokes work on more then one level; if you didn't get it I know what level you're at. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16e50e6a16f24ed3a3751625fbe686d1", "input": "Review: I had heard good things about this film and was, you guessed it, a bit disappointed. Reese Witherspoon is as promised surprisingly good, surprisingly confident, at a young age; really all the (small) cast are quite solid, in their simple 50s American setting. The reason I didn't rate this film higher is mainly that towards the end, the grief shown by the older sister didn't seem so real and this pulled me out of the film a bit. Perhaps we are expected to fill in the plot, or perhaps the film needed to be a bit longer. Maureen's character is quite underdeveloped I think. It is understandable that Dani (Reese W., the younger) would be traumatised and angry, but why is her sister shown to be more upset? Because she's a few years older? Hasn't the end rather undermined the rest of the film? The pacing of the movie makes it seem that Maureen and Court have only just met, when he gets tractored (warning: this scene is surprisingly brutal, in retrospect it seems like it might have been trying to shock a bit. well it works!). It depends what you want - if you want the girls' happy story of young love that it seems like you're going to get, you're in for a surprise. Man in the Moon is both quaint and dreamy and a harsh coming of age film – a rather awkward combination? I liked the character of Court though, I can see what girls watching this might be watching. And I loved that they had the courage to both let him hurt the younger sister (most men would, most films wouldn't) and get killed.7/10 on my pretty harsh ratings scale. For some reason I found Jason London on a tractor funny. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ebbeda2ef824db7a1f363678b161027", "input": "Review: I read the reviews before i watched this movie, and i didn't believe them. I love crap movies and i expected this one to be average. It wasn't. This film makes Camp Blood 1 and 2 look like greats. The film contains bad acting, poor sound, poor confusing storyline, bad makeup- and it bored me so much i turned it off. even the nudity was rubbish! Did they even have a budget for this film? I don't think they did. You can tell if your gonna like this film or not in the first 5 minutes. if u want a good cheesy gory film go watch toxic avenger 4 or even camp blood. Avoid this trash - I watched it on TV and felt riped off, so don't spend anything on it. The best part is probably the end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-031594d85ff94c06800e1e3e4d548a44", "input": "Review: This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any \"rewind\" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9946042dca9d4b1fa437a95a26b05b8c", "input": "Review: A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1dae5f7ae8a7481b90158ca6f64f564b", "input": "Review: I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ca9b71c86d349a7812c870b79a2ea9b", "input": "Review: EARTH is a must see for children and adults. My son had great fun watching all these funny birds and ice bears. We can learn a lot from this movie and we should be proud on our great treasure on earth. There are some animals in danger to disappear. Exactly that problem should prevent all the authorities of our planet. This documentary offers many exceptional pictures that I have never seen before. Then it is well accompanied by a heavenly music. The director did a great job here that gets high respect. Nothing can stop me and my family to give EARTH the highest rate. I hope so much that the stuff will create a sequel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9165b853017c4e49a9a4c776cc94601a", "input": "Review: Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73511559c1724141a31fb3bdbaca1798", "input": "Review: At first glance, it would seem natural to compare Where the Sidewalk Ends with Laura. Both have noirish qualities, both were directed by Otto Preminger, and both star Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. But that's where most of the comparisons end. Laura dealt with posh, sophisticated people with means who just happen to find themselves mixed-up in a murder. Where the Sidewalk Ends is set in a completely different strata. These are people with barely two nickels to rub together who are more accustomed to seeing the underbelly of society than going to fancy dress parties. Where the Sidewalk ends is a gritty film filled with desperate people who solve their problems with their fists or some other weapon. Small-time hoods are a dime-a-dozen and cops routinely beat confessions out of the crooks. Getting caught-up in a murder investigation seems as natural as breathing.While I haven't seen his entire body of work, based on what I have seen, Dana Andrews gives one of his best performances as the beat-down cop, Det. Sgt. Mark Dixon. He's the kind of cop who is used to roughing up the local hoods if it gets him information or a confession. One night, he goes too far and accidentally kills a man. He does his best to cover it up. But things get complicated when he falls for the dead man's wife, Morgan Taylor (Tierney), whose father becomes suspect number one in the murder case. As Morgan's father means the world to her, Dixon's got to do what he can to clear the old man without implicating himself.Technically, Where the Sidewalk Ends is outstanding. Besides the terrific performance from Andrews, the movie features the always delightful Tierney. She has a quality that can make even the bleakest of moments seem brighter. The rest of the cast is just as solid with Tom Tully as the wrongly accused father being a real standout. Beyond the acting, the direction, sets, lighting, and cinematography are all top-notch. Overall, it's an amazingly well made film.If I have one complaint (and admittedly it's a very, very minor quibble) it's that Tierney is almost too perfect for the role and her surroundings. It's a little difficult to believe that a woman like that could find herself mixed-up with some of these unsavory characters. It's not really her fault, it's just the way Tierney comes across. She seems a little too beautiful, polished, and delicate for the part. But, her gentle, kind, trusting nature add a sense of needed realism to her portrayal. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-391be758631842f195800e27bae72b9c", "input": "Review: this was a fantastic episode. i saw a clip from it on YouTube, and i vowed that should it ever show on TV, i would glue myself to the set in order to watch. i wound up watching it with a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, and the two of us cried at the end. this was a truly well-written, heartfelt episode of the forbidden love between two cops who, i felt, really were (in Coop's words) \"the Lucky Ones\". it is episodes like this one that really make Cold Case one of the most captivating and much-loved works of television magic on CBS. i anxiously await more episodes, and a re-run of \"Forever Blue\" because i will always watch it again and again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d969a85186e49cfa0a8d4d75ce8aac7", "input": "Review: I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a79d18b4ffcf4a8895f974f0ad8acc04", "input": "Review: Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79b817da0512472eb13f660d9a6a28c6", "input": "Review: As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like \"he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages\" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5674c2e3f3f44714b32eabe0d53fa720", "input": "Review: When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5950cb67bbe74e43a819d9f9b33683f0", "input": "Review: If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.SPOILERS-- Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who \"supposedly\" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body! The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly! Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58eb30a64c7d42c095f8035929391f25", "input": "Review: The whole point of making this film, one of the earliest and best international color releases of cinematic opera, was to make it more accessible to the masses. And it succeeded admirably in doing so. The general public would not sit still for a love story about two young exotic lovers in ancient Egypt if played by the typical 300 pound over 40 tenor and soprano with the vocal equipment to sing the glorious music properly. Hence the visual substitution of the beautiful principals (a young Loren, handsome Della Marra, and a slinky Ms. Maxwell)who make the story much more believable, giving those not familiar with the plot or the music a better chance at being wooed into the lovely arias who otherwise might not be. Altogether, an enchanting introduction to one of Verdi's great works. I remember seeing this when I was in junior high school and it certainly awakened my interest in opera, a form with which I was then not well acquainted. I still regard this film fondly and would recommend it highly to those who might appreciate the great music accompanied by better than average visuals. Luciano Della Marra was a standout as Radames, and unfortunately for audiences did not appear in any other films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43a69dc769e942babdba073851de785e", "input": "Review: This docu-drama is what you would expect from Richard Attenborough, the man who gave us \"Gandhi\": beautifully photographed, compellingly casted, well written in the measured, literate manner that Hollywood discarded in the 30's, and scrupulously accurate. It stands out as a genre film, excelling in its portrayal of native American (or, more appropriately for its Canadian setting, \"First Nations\") culture and standing with \"Black Robe\" as a wonderfully photographed piece of Canoe Country and its culture (here, circa 1934). This idyllic portrait derives drama from its subject: Archie \"Grey Owl\" Belaney, a Scot raised in Hastings (England) by maiden aunts who became so obsessed with the \"red indian\" tales of his childhood that he went to Canada, disappeared into the woods, and became a trapper and adopted son of an Ojibway band. He was a vain man with a habit of marrying and abandoningIndian brides, none of whom seem to have thought less of him for it, for he was also an extraordinarily charming and picaresque character. One of his wives (one smarter than he, by most accounts) propelled him into fame as a writer and early advocate for protecting the wild country of the North, and this forms the focus of Attenborough's tale. The chemistry between Brosnan and Annie Galipeau (as Grey Owl's wife Pony) is engaging and, if not firey, is nonetheless quite touching. A good film when you need some time from the madding crowd. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76612d7f095b4bf79cfb1a68cb9184d7", "input": "Review: \"Happenstance\" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since \"When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). \"A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for \"Amelie,\" its French title is more apt: \"Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)\" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not. But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.(originally written 12/8/2001) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb88a072cb7249a58ba378fa09d03e60", "input": "Review: I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a \"fun\" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fe148a756d040ccb649a111ab818ecc", "input": "Review: MINOR SPOILERS!Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like \"Boyz n the hood\". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called \"message\" movies. The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called \"Higher Learning\" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire \"American History X\"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13ed1d2cfd424b60970bc855c86875c3", "input": "Review: This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to \"Blainsworth\" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it. Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c0537fcf30948c28201c12d1e52d288", "input": "Review: I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in \"Anne Frank\" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-557155ab1a624f3c97f047bc37bb7ffa", "input": "Review: I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8630fdfc9ff8422b8c93a860a9c9faad", "input": "Review: This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32106d8701554431a54f14cac941d6d0", "input": "Review: Typical 90's comedy, situational comedy similar to our modern day \"My Family\". Thatcher being the height of most political jokes, Bill (Belinda Lang) blames Thatcher for anything she can. \"Bloody Thatcher\" possibly shared with most of us. David the typical teenager, cutting up brains with bread knives, Jenny, the moody older teenage child, only interested in boys and more boys. Bill and Ben working as much as they can to keep their family afloat struggling within the economical climate of the early 90's. Granted the first two series were not as successful as the latter however, series 3 onwards is where it all kicks off with more laughs that i care to count. overall this show didn't get the best viewing times and they ought to have held on a bit longer. clearly they couldn't have carried on after Gary Olsen died but i think they should get rid of \"catherine Tate\" \"the office\" \"little Britain\" and bring back the classics! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2cafd91dfa84589a1764fa588c3b7d6", "input": "Review: Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-16f266999fea46329c574b7d9f6b7f3f", "input": "Review: It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd5c9adbc0ed4b9cae0e90dd5b341e66", "input": "Review: Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e3f0a9c79a6416bb8e80150c6a72595", "input": "Review: This movie was so good. Leon Phelps is hilarious. I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!!I went out after and bought a case of Cognac!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a341d5ac7cf439b95f5ebfbf3478741", "input": "Review: (48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow \"idealism\" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By \"them\" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its \"secret\" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated \"artists\" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.\"Guerrilla\" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as \"Malcolm X\" or \"Gandhi\", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the \"proleteriat\" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear \"edgy\", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those \"Che-wearers\" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel \"ideals\" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fd12f2ea9f54e85bfbdcf0a3e3826b5", "input": "Review: This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-120cf2bbe62d489aa3012df4ce960f06", "input": "Review: One of my favorite movies which has been overlooked by too many movie goers, an observation which mystifies me. Not only directed by the acclaimed Ang Lee,it had many young actors who were to become major stars, e.g., Tobey Maguire (before Spiderman), Skeet Ulrich (before Jericho), Jonathan Rhys Meyers (before Tudors), James Caviezel, Simon Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright, Tom Wilkinson, and Jewel. All of the acting was superb and each of the actors mentioned gave memorable performances, especially Meyers who portrayed an evil villain who killed for the sake of killing.When the biographies and accomplishments of the director ( even when he won an academy award) and the actors are listed, this film is usually omitted from their past performances. I discovered the film on DVD by accident and it became one of my most often watched films. However, it is seldom every seen on cable. I look forward to reading what others suggest are the reasons this film is not well known. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6313cb8e971c43649e9426da6ae92479", "input": "Review: I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-295532e023db42488d324241317ab2b3", "input": "Review: I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called \"jokes\" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e1a65fb176244888a09a8d180e0f144", "input": "Review: This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-526ae1d6139f44d7bde10dfb30adda1d", "input": "Review: When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions. Yes, the movie is very much like \"Bend it like Beckham\", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29e706a88ea04d7082f750cc648c03e6", "input": "Review: This movie starts presenting a somehow original idea but became a great frustration later on. What is the deal of having an original start if the rest of the movie did little to avoid a clichéd plot? The movie itself is very unbelievable. I would like to know how exactly someone enters a clinic, gets a nurse outfit, kills a doctor, takes out a patient in her bed, puts into his Chevy pickup and leaves? I guess no one could answer this question, so they just jumped to the other scene hiding these little details. The performances are just plain bad. The villain is just another \"annoying crazy antagonist\", no deepness, totally linear character. After 20 minutes of film, most scenes are unbelievable, seemed like they were put there just for the sake of the 90 minutes since they were totally unneeded. A doctor see a woman clearly under strong medication, is denied to examine her, gets kicked out of the house and simply leaves quiet? The ending scene made me burst into laugher, only Mickey Mouse could make it more out of reality. I'm giving it 2 out of 10 for the first lets say 10 minutes of movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc8c47d5acab4c4ea4b7249901fcd7f0", "input": "Review: A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14eebc06b6c64de0b356a0f8a570925e", "input": "Review: This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as \"Fury of the Wolfman\". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as \"Fury of the Wolfman\". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis...\"Chematodes\", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to \"change the direction of the human brain\", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to \"help them be human again\" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, \"Frankenstein's Bloody Terror\" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. \"Fury of the Wolfman\" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bcd572edde24a3f8ce9365b9db7dbdd", "input": "Review: how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60e69e4301914d158e9e39684f56389d", "input": "Review: Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-348cbd594e8b4a44892f72928a7c51e9", "input": "Review: An absolutely brilliant show. The second season began where the first ended, with much mystery. Suspense in most, if not all episodes and mystery everywhere. One that made me think and think again. It's truly amazing how the writer can come out with all the connections and link all the characters together and combine all these elements to make the lives of the characters in the show so meaningful. Never fail to excites and I am looking forward to the new season. Hopefully more secrets will be reveal and at the same time, more mystery to be solved. Good selection of cast too for this show, fit the characters perfectly. Really can't wait to finally discover the secret. Hopefully all the hype won't spoil the ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b68a4370f9b44aea00529c75afff2b6", "input": "Review: Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing \"Spot the Villain\" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79877834d8d14a84bc03d9c746aaf29b", "input": "Review: There's something about every \"Hammer\" movie I see that really takes me into a new fantasy world. In the world of \"Hammer\" movies, anything can happen. \"Guardian of the Abyss\" is one of those types of movies. It adventures deep into the occult and hypnosis to bring a different type of horror fantasy. All in all, an unforgettable movie. 7.5/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59a4ad2424e144eabbfb0147b56dd4d5", "input": "Review: What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-39a0b53861f84f708ce99f8b369e159f", "input": "Review: This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the \"Passion\" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of \"The Passion of the Christ\" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, \"just doing my job\" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to \"authenticity\", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more \"right\" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, \"The Death\"--not the Life--\"of Christ\"), ultimately a very rewarding one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-56234faf589444969b97032efae4db60", "input": "Review: I tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbf6fdbf4d274f9389101b7f7458b070", "input": "Review: I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.And the tagline, \"Revenge can be deadly\"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f551bccc764443a9162b65e9addb803", "input": "Review: An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, \"Soul Survivors\" is the latest entry in the \"who's dead and who's alive\" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbdf6c9b69b14d1785d01a966a09e6aa", "input": "Review: It was in 1988, when I saw \"The Ronnie and Nancy Show\" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially \"The Ronnie and Nancy Show\". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself \"I need a shave\". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73f2d535285c406d8578ec237fe2fbf3", "input": "Review: I am writing this after just seeing The Perfect Son at the 2002 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Film Festival in Sydney, Australia.When their Father dies, two estranged brothers meet at the funeral and after discovering that one of the brothers is dying from AIDS, they enter on a heart warming journey of reconciliation. The two leads do a magnificent job of creating the gradual warmth and respect that builds up between them as the movie progresses. I do have one qualm about the movie though - whilst the brother who is dying acts sick, he doesn't look it. A person of 0 T4 cells would look quite ill - not even a make up job to make the actor look ill was employed. A small gripe, but one that makes it a bit less realistic. Despite that one small gripe, The Perfect Son is a wonderful movie and should you have the chance to see it- do. I'm hoping for a DVD release in the near future! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c78f6a90f9854b98ab70c68c21b9e87d", "input": "Review: In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.The polemic and shameful \"Cama de Gato\" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): \"Cama de Gato\" (\"Bed of the Cat\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41b4de4d737a4d6d9cee262e221c8267", "input": "Review: One of the less widely lauded of recent Asian period action affairs Gojoe is an at first slow and often curious but overall pretty terrific offering, exciting, layered and beautiful. I'm sad to say I know virtually nothing of the Buddhist philosophy or Japanese history and legend that surrounds this film so its deeper meanings are lost on me, but even without contextual knowledge this is still rich fare, taking a traditional fantasy structure into a, impactful higher plane. The story is of Benkei, a warrior monk and perhaps demon who seeks enlightenment by destroying the demon of Gojoe Bridge: Prince Shanao, himself a mortal seeker after his own higher plane but this time the power of demons. Thus the film becomes a matter of illusions and in Benkei's case, indecision, a conflict in which the real goal is self knowledge, for Benkei to come to terms with his true nature and for Prince Shanao to come face to face with the nature of what he seeks to become. Benkei is even more hampered here by the fact that his dark nature makes him fundamentally at odds with the world, even when not in open conflict he is never at ease. Director Sogo Ishii handles this one as an epic, with measured pace, camera work always stylish and often frenzied, without neglecting the need for more sedate moments to let the location sink in, there is also great use of lighting and fog to give an ethereal atmosphere, there is an air of fantasy to much of the film but outside of the overtly supernatural moments it is a down and dirty fantasy with more period fell than flights of fancy. The cinematography of Makoto Watanbe is important here, vivid and detailed, a richly evocative affair. Actingwise Daisuke Ryu is dignified and powerful with a mysterious savagery as Benkei, while Tadanobu Asano has a driven, cold arrogance as Prince Shanao. Of the leads Masatoshi Nagase rounds things out as an ordinary man, smart and cynical but still unaware of just exactly what the stakes are. The film all fits together well, it is however a touch flabby at times, it begins slowly, some shots are a little drawn out and the epic fight scenes at times go on longer than strictly necessary. As for the fighting it is filmed frenetic rather than for actual moves, it has artistic impact but may disappoint regular action fans, often obscured by objects, flashing blades and fast moving individuals, whirling with deadly force through their adversaries are the order of the day, it is invigorating to watch but in the end I could have done with a little more traditionalism. There is some unfortunate cgi bloodshed as well, it somewhat works in the context but is still distracting. Overall though I found this to be a pretty great film, its not one for regular action fans or swordplay enthusiasts seeking another Azumi, rather a deeper and more mystical beast, its ending in particular will not go down well with fans of the more generic wing of such fare. But as for myself it really hit the spot and for those more adventurously inclined it might do so too. Well recommended at any rate. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4410e62a707457bb60164414660a321", "input": "Review: Well you take O.J. Simpson as a all american soldier turned all american bus driver who decides to rescue his passengers on his own just incase no one else is going to and Arte Johnson in an absolutely straight role as the tour guide who doesn't know what to do but doesn't want to admit they are in trouble and combine it with Lorenzo Lamas as one of three baby faced bad boys who intend to kidnap an heiress and leave a busload of people to die on the dessert and you have got to have action, plot twists and a lot of drama. Everyone was good but seeing Lamas as the baddest of the bad boys really blew my mind. He was much too believable as the overbearing bad guy who not only wanted to kidnap the heiress but rape the women and humiliate the guy who tried to stop him. This was evidently long before he cultivated his good guy image. And believe me a 20 year old Lorenzo in tight jeans you really don't want to miss! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-916a31ef39af41ff84f880b7f707316d", "input": "Review: I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this \"The Best Adaptation Ever\" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9554a6b95374872bec9bd96ccad3979", "input": "Review: A young ( only 21 ) director with great talent, a powerful scenario, young and ambitious cast with all theatrical background...One of the first tries of a thriller in Turkish cinema, which seems in the future we'll have some more based on the success...Shot on high definition video, the movie is perhaps effected on world thrillers, especially the American thrillers. The technical and cinematographic character is quite well done, the scenes are all well worked on. Not too much blood but sufficient enough to make you think you're in a blood bath too...The scenario is quite wise but with certain clues, a clever audience can easily predict what's going on and at the end when everything settles down you're getting somehow weird to conclude the result.Well done Tiglon, one of the biggest DVD distributors in Turkey, it is not easy to decide for such a movie in their first try as a production company... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e021f07772424fbf93b00f49b6f9d255", "input": "Review: I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c85293d117d43979e682e055c84ad70", "input": "Review: This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the \"go-getter\" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30690b2145984917b6f16ed7b7c36e95", "input": "Review: One previous reviewer called this film \"pure visual joy\" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. \"High Art\" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since \"Seven\". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac9df17cc3b8456fb645395f0642bc65", "input": "Review: I have complained to ABC about the cancellation of six degrees. If enough people do the same then it could be enough to bring this fabulous show back to life!! Just go onto the official site and the rest is simple enough. I do not understand why this show has been cancelled. What a fantastic show, cast and characters. The whole concept is gripping viewing! I am astounded that my favourite show is over after just one series. Why is this? Six degrees is phenomenal, it's better than so many other TV programmes out there! Until I heard they were stopping it from a friend it hadn't even occurred to me that this might happen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e32326dac9db43df9e82cf7f83313bc4", "input": "Review: I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b9de0016322400cbf6192fd511cf6ae", "input": "Review: This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d74ebdbec3634ff8b32fb73c3820eafe", "input": "Review: Shamefully, before I saw this film, I was unfamiliar with Helena Bonham Carter.I had to do some research, in order to assure myself she wasn't actually afflicted, as was her character, with (well?), what she was afflicted with. I was in absolute awe of this beautiful lady. She pulled it of flawlessly.Who would have thought that sexually explicit circumstances involving the final wants, and needs, of a unique young lady, could be interpreted as tender, and romantic? Well, they can be, when the right performers present them in the proper manner, as they did in this wonderful movie. I forgot to mention how dynamically beautiful Miss Carter looked in this movie. I have often said she was the most beautiful creature to have ever graced the face of our earth, but she seemed to have out done herself in this particular movie.I hope any of you who watch this movie enjoy it as much as I did. Thank you for letting me express my opinion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-498231621853457c92690004aadd921f", "input": "Review: The inspiring story of Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.), a black man who grew up in poverty in Kentucky and then joined the US Navy, aspiring to be the first black Master Diver in Navy history. We are shown the series of struggles from boyhood on that Brashear has to overcome to make his dream come true (and then to keep it alive.) Not the least of the challenges was Master Diver Bill Sunday (Robert DeNiro), the head trainer at the diving school the Navy sends Brashear to, who is not especially sympathetic to Brashear's goals, but who ultimately becomes an unlikely friend and supporter.This is a good movie; fast paced and with a lot of action, although not an \"action\" pic in the normal sense of the word. There's a very human story here as well, and an interesting study of racism and the struggle to overcome it; there's also a sense of the struggle that took place in the 1960's between older and younger naval officers (the \"old navy\" vs the \"new navy.\") The performances are quite good - particularly Goodings'. I thought DeNiro was perhaps a bit over the top in his portrayal of Sunday (although, who knows, Sunday might well have been this extreme kind of loose cannon) and the portrayal of Sunday's wife Gwen (by Charlize Theron) also made me question whether these parts were \"jazzed up\" to provide entertainment value.A good movie, though. I never once wondered if it was worth tuning into.7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8063ebf3f2634f4a946787ed83a1ba47", "input": "Review: This may actually be the worst movie that I have ever scene. Incoherent would be a compliment. Even the end made no sense but it was a tremendous relief that it was finally over. I watched it with a kind of fatalistic fascination to see if it could continue to deteriorate and it did. By the end of this mess I was sorry any of the characters survived and I wasn't feeling too charitable about the actors either.If you want to watch a train wreck, I recommend hanging out at a train station. Even waiting on a deserted train platform beats this mess. Apparently I haven't vented enough to fill up my prescribed ten lines so, at the risk of redundancy, I will say it one more time. This movie is a zero and it would be less if I had a word for an even lower rating. How about minus zero? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-03f68adc4ac644738ae61b81bf8e812d", "input": "Review: I rarely write a negative review for this site, but this time felt complied to. Night Listener is without doubt one of the dullest films I have ever seen.There was nothing happening in this film what so ever - I didn't care for any of the characters, didn't buy in to the whole mystery type plot, didn't care how it ended....nothing.There is no comedy, no action, no thrills, no suspense, nothing. The highlights include (no spoilers - there's nothing to spoil): a man climbing through a window, a dog barking outside a hotel room, a car going over some rough ground and a truck beeping it's horn.I really enjoyed \"One Hour Photo\" and hoped for a similar eerie role from Williams, but alas was sorely let down. What's more disappointing is that I'm sure there is a good film in there somewhere - the idea was interesting and I should have felt sympathy for the characters, but it just didn't work for me.I might even have given it 1/10 but that score is reserved for the remake of The Producers Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ec5507e44054aa282aa481e36c09f45", "input": "Review: This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccb668fc7d4e4f5daec6536f8fe17b1a", "input": "Review: A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say \"Freddy Got Fingered\" or \"Lost Reality\", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.My Grade: D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eae54502d69b45f68429eee4aaa1a60a", "input": "Review: It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the \"stage\", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the \"heat is on\", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the \"saitn\" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A- Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76e201b84b02401e81ceae65e30dbfda", "input": "Review: Halloween is not only the godfather of all slasher movies but the greatest horror movie ever! John Carpenter and Debra Hill created the most suspenseful, creepy, and terrifying movie of all time with this classic chiller. Michael Myers is such a phenomenal monster in this movie that he inspired scores of imitators, such as Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th), The Miner (My Bloody Valentine), and Charlie Puckett (The Night Brings Charlie). Okay, so I got a little obscure there, but it just goes to show you the impact that this movie had on the entire horror genre. No longer did a monster have to come from King Tut's tomb or from Dr. Frankenstein's lab. He could be created in the cozy little neighborhoods of suburbia. And on The Night He Came Home...Haddonfield, Illinois and the viewers would never be the same. There are many aspects of this movie that make it the crowning jewel of horror movies. First is the setting...it takes place in what appears to be a normal suburban neighborhood. Many of us who grew up in an area such as this can easily identify with the characters. This is the type of neighborhood where you feel safe, but if trouble starts to brew, nobody wants to lift a finger to get involved (especially when a heavy-breathing madman is trying to skewer our young heroine.) Along with the setting, the movie takes place on Halloween!! The scariest night of the year! While most people are carving jack-o-lanterns, Michael Myers is looking to carve up some teenie-boppers. Besides the setting, there is some great acting. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job as our heroine, Laurie Strode, a goody-two-shoes high-schooler who can never seem to find a date. However, it is Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Sam Loomis, who really steals the show. His portrayal of the good doctor, who knows just what type of evil hides behind the black eyes of Michael Myers and feels compelled to send him to Hell once and for all, is the stuff of horror legend. However, it is the synthesizer score that really drives this picture as it seems to almost put the viewer into the film. Once you hear it, you will never forget it. I also enjoy the grainy feel to this picture. Nowadays, they seem to sharpen up the image of every movie, giving us every possible detail of the monster we are supposed to be afraid of. In Halloween, John Carpenter never really lets us get a complete look at Michael Myers. He always seems like he is a part of the shadows, and, I think that is what makes him so terrifying. There are many scenes where Michael is partly visible as he spies on the young teens (unbeknownst to them), which adds to his creepiness. If you think about, some wacko could be watching you right now and you wouldn't even know it. Unfortunately for our teenagers (and fortunately for us horror fans), when they find Michael, he's not looking for candy on this Halloween night..he's looking for blood. Finally, Michael Myers, himself, is a key element to this movie's effectiveness. His relentless pursuit of Laurie Strode makes him seem like the killer who will never stop. He is the bogeyman that will haunt you for the rest of your life. So,if you have not seen this movie (if there are still some of you out there who haven't, or even if you have), grab some popcorn, turn off every light, pop this into the old DVD and watch in fright. Trick or Treat! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eae2cc9a7cb41639f0069201e329d01", "input": "Review: This film seems to be well remembered as the time Tom & Jerry signed a peace treaty. Things are idyllic for a time but, predictably, it goes sour. Probably the most memorable moment was the endless fight involving a pipe, a frying pan, and a baseball bat that the two plus Butch the dog engage in at the beginning and end of the short. I enjoyed one a bunch and you should try to catch it on Cartoon Network. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9bc1d2f3c034f81800b48bd167f1cd0", "input": "Review: The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-57901f0146d54b77b6f0b641e60db4a9", "input": "Review: If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-680e98e39e174d46bfd3435424466acd", "input": "Review: Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprisedwith this movie. James \"I did some things to Farrah Fawcett\" Orr co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guynamed Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have beenincredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball gamewhen he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartenderMike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new lifeisn't exactly as he hoped it would be.I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have givenit mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting andpulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enoughfunny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it reallygood. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. JonLovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine intheir roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It'sjust a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, Ihighly recommend you check Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6a8e5772de2491eb81b23a0a535e3c5", "input": "Review: Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put \"good\" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself \"acting\"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: \"It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it.\" Ahh, more people have been called \"Brenda\" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea7df97da7484f8fba63384395f6c1af", "input": "Review: This is real character and story driven drama at a level that shames most of what we see on TV at the mo.I was impressed right from the start. Don't be put off if your not a sci fi nut (like me...) This could be happening on earth, the fact that its in another galaxy just makes the show more interesting. there are no space ships or laser guns (None yet anyway) So far I've seen up to s01 e04 and I'm gripped and wondering whats going to happen next as there are so many possibilities.The cast play there roles with pasion. Eric stoltz is especially strong.This show really stands alone well, it doesn't matter if you watched BSG or not, in fact they are quite different. I've read some negative reviews from sci fi geeks who expected less drama and more aliens and ray guns etc but I would say ignore them.This is a really positive start to a show. Lets hope they don't cann it after 1 or 2 seasons like they normally do with good shows these days. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d0212fcc4fe4f01b957ece1b2d68d18", "input": "Review: First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c83bc935816548f096ab439d14d0b19a", "input": "Review: Mario Lanza, of course, is \"The Great Caruso\" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from \"Lucia\" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in \"Girl of the Golden West,\" There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during \"L'Elisir d'amore\" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen \"suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband,\" that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film \"Match Point\" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in \"The Great Caruso\" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-afc831a6ab6c425eabea9d02137219fb", "input": "Review: I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? \"Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well.\" Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36bea9a7a77c4c6c8edf62f38192f104", "input": "Review: I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e04a248864014db3a598495fd63bc22c", "input": "Review: First off, I didn't know what to expect when I started the video.Anytime someone brings back a cult type movie genre and adapts it into the present, something gets inexplicably lost in the translation.That's not the case here. This movie just starts off on the right track. It's part familiar territory but manages to take it over the top as well. Crockzilla scene anyone? That has to be seen, and just try and keep a straight face. This movie takes some of the old fun cult movie classics and manages to blend it seamlessly into a modern production. It's good to see someone is filling the need in this market. Very well done. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dec6da68e4774e14a097c0f935fe91ed", "input": "Review: Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of \"The Highest Honor\" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-77b56bdc46004100bb79a68150580764", "input": "Review: JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47ac31d3632b4bd395061b5bce18464d", "input": "Review: Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7672aadca66e419595c2d26fe4457a0b", "input": "Review: Ok, after reading a couple of reviews on Atlantis: The Lost Empire, I just want to clear up some misunderstanding as to it being a direct rip off from Nadia: Secret of the Blue Water. The only part that was a ripoff from Nadia is that the pendant from Nadia and the pendant from Atlantis bear so much resemblence in terms of how it's used, origins and how it's created from the source of life that there's no doubt about it being copied. If you want to consider how Kida and Nadia is dressed alike then you could put that against Disney too(It was kind of wierd for Nadia and Kida to wear that bikini style clothing in an adventure sci-fi, not to mention they both move in a similar style too). As an anime fan I have to agree there's some degree of copying but it's only on the minor details and even though not many of the ideas are original (like the encryption design on the wall in Laputa, the ancient mask from Princess Mononoke, the resemblence of the vehicles to the Garfish submarine in Nadia, etc)...The plot itself I believe it's highly original and it's quite amazing that Disney can pull it off without the use of Captain Nemo(the main character in Jules Verne's 20k Leagues Under the Sea which is also the main character in Nadia). As for Mylo and Jean wearing similar style glasses...As shown in the novel \"Lord of the Flies\", glasses is a symbol of wisdom and intelligence. I think Mylo, Jean, the main character from Stargate and a dozen of other \"INTELLIGENT\" characters would look kind of unfit for the role if they went in without glasses. As for the submarines, and how the submarines fight(with those wide blast torpedos which really resembles what Nautilius does), I want to state that it's a required element for either one if Atlantis is involved in the plot(after all it's a sunken city beneath the waters). As for the crew having some charactistical resemblence with the crew from Nautilius in Nadia, it might be the artwork but I don't sense any copyright infringement there as the character's personalities were perfectly original to me. As an anime fan that rated Nadia as the #1 best anime I ever watched even now today. I do have my doubts about Atlantis when I first saw the preview. But now that I watched the movie, I once again regained my confidence with Disney and have high hopes for their future movies after Atlantis. Overall, the best Disney movie yet without me shivering at the sound of their songs at the middle of the movie and it's a plus that they revised their cheesy scripts to make it even better. Also, it's amazing that they actually portray the bad guys look normal with out making them overly evil in the beginning (I was wondering who the bad guys are and only the blonde girl kind of resemble the looks of a bad character in terms of how Disney draws it aka make the bad guys look really menacing) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79fb0d81d7664f96a0d10fe76066a40e", "input": "Review: The excruciatingly slow pace of this film was probably the director's express intention, in order to convey what life was like growing up as a village teen in China. However, I found the combination of the glacially slow 'plot' and the general filming style so impersonal as to be totally alienating, particularly to a western audience. At times I actually had trouble telling some characters apart, as they were filmed from such a distance. Two hours in and I was totally past caring. As someone who is not only interested in music but is also very into the history and culture of China (and is by the way no stranger to Chinese cinema), I couldn't engage with a single character and found nothing to get my teeth into. It begs the question: If I disliked it, who on earth would like it? Give me Zhang Yimou, give me Chen Kaige. Give me the work of just about any other Chinese director I've ever seen. This sorry effort just doesn't measure up at all. I'd be sorry to see Chinese cinema judged against this benchmark. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-05a8c2ca9b044aa2bccc403adb5a9166", "input": "Review: VERY dull, obvious, tedious Exorcist rip-off featuring a Doberman with red eyes - that's the extent of the special effects in this made-for-tv cheapie. Richard Crenna is about as animate as a chew toy. Very 70's dress & music only add to the torture. Should put you to sleep almost as fast as \"The Corpse Vanishes\", or \"The Blue Hand\". Practically worthless. MooCow says eaghhh what a stinky dog! :=8P Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec001a9c56aa416b9a2339c7f4fd6fa4", "input": "Review: Almost the entire film takes place in a public bathhouse in China. There are no fancy sets, explosion or glamorous people--only fine writing, acting and direction (Hollywood, take note!).An estranged son returns home when he believes his father is dying. He is surprised to see that Dad looks fine and is going about running the family business as usual. In fact, he notices that his father and his retarded brother have really forged a close and caring relationship and it soon becomes obvious that he is out of the loop! Dad is very traditional and this visiting son is from the big city and doesn't really see the value of the old bathhouse. How their relationship changes and where the plot goes from there is exceptional and believable.I was happy to see that not every Chinese movie is an action picture (such as those starring Jet Li or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), as I don't particularly care for these frenetic films. The Shower as well as Springtime In A Small Town are two wonderful examples of good Chinese films about PEOPLE! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53503785ce524231be6be2a0b97b1462", "input": "Review: The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-403a05b7851845f98284fda41dec2255", "input": "Review: What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit. Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0d8dd77b12f4346a641475cf23f24a6", "input": "Review: This is an interesting left turn for Reel 13 Indies. TWO HARBORS is a B&W 75 minute film from Minnesota that features non-actors and is about two people finding a connection through a search for alien life. I applaud the boldness of the Reel 13 programmers of thinking out-of-the-box when selecting this film. I just wish they had picked a stronger film to be bold with. As a matter of fact, I wonder if the choice had more to do with the uniqueness of the film than with the actual quality of the film itself (Not that TWO HARBORS is completely without merit, but I'll get to that a little later). As is common with independent films, TWO HARBORS is limited in terms of location. There are only two real locations – a large junk dealership market and a very teeny trailer, which is the home of the middle-aged main character, Vic, played by Alex Cole. Writer/director James Vculek uses the market setting to provide exposition about Vic, who is one of the dealers there. He has various people walk up to Vic and start very long conversations that provides us with just two pieces of information – Vic sells space toys (he prefers to call them \"outer space action figures\") and he is a caustic asshole. This is emblematic of one of the two key problems with TWO HARBORS - all the chatting. I've said it before and I'll say it again – we are dealing with a visual medium and filmmakers need to work harder to tell their stories visually. There are exceptions, of course, but generally, endless patter is not so engaging on film – particularly if the dialogue is being used as exposition. Pretty much all the conversations in the film are long and unnecessarily verbose. A notable example would be a few scenes which feature Vic trying to play himself off as a Boy Scout leader in order to get a discount at a store. He argues with the clerk back and forth and these scenes don't even advance the plot one iota. This is the kind of thing that makes even a 75 minute film feel long.The other problem with TWO HARBORS is the acting. I may be a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to performance in film, but I really don't feel like there's a good excuse for not having good actors in your films. There are plenty of good actors out there, many of which willing to work on low-budget projects – even in Minnesota. Many filmmakers eschew the importance of acting ability as being secondary to their visuals, but that is naïve. In narrative film-making, next to the story, nothing is more important than the acting/performances. If you don't believe the people enacting your story, your audience is lost.Originally, I thought Vculek was using non-actors, but as the film went on, I decided that they were probably community theater-type actors. It wasn't that they were uncomfortable on camera. It's that they were overly theatrical (i.e. big). Granted, the best of the actors were the two leads – Cole and Catherine E. Johnson as Cassie, a lonely young girl that gets caught up in Vic's extra-terrestrial hunt. They seemed to have the most training, but they were still a little rough around the edges. The eccentricities they displayed seemed to be surface only - not coming from a real, organic place within. Ms. Johnson, in particular, is an interesting case. She definitely has a presence – a Midwestern charm about her, but that charisma belies the multitude of issues her character is supposed to have. She struggles to portray the idiosyncrasies that stem from a supposed life of solitude and (slave?) labor, relying on stock gestures like eye rolls, lip biting and stammering to suggest her discomfort with the outside world.I mentioned in the first paragraph that TWO HARBORS is not completely without merit and here's what I mean. Without giving too much away, there is a fade to white an hour into the film. After that, the story takes a stunning turn, which allows the last fifteen minutes to be evocative and downright powerful – it's like a sucker punch to the gut, but in a good way. It's almost a huge relief to feel something after so long with these characters. The last five minutes of the film don't have any dialogue at all and the result is the best part of the film – subtle, detailed (Cole does his best work of the film) and most importantly, cinematic. Then, with the closing credits comes the most staggering revelation of all – that it's based on a true story, which got me to thinking. With all the dialogue, the minimal locations and the lack of cinematic qualities, it occurred to me that with two kick ass actors and a tightening re-write, TWO HARBORS might make a really kick-ass stage play – maybe even a one-act. If there are any bold theater producers out there reading this, I definitely recommend seeing if you can get a hold of the film and contact the filmmaker, Reel 13 or whomever. There might be something to this story after all…(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-759c182a408346998c7e2702bca25a17", "input": "Review: I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae375f71ab6c48588216972e8a7d146d", "input": "Review: this was a fantastic episode. i saw a clip from it on YouTube, and i vowed that should it ever show on TV, i would glue myself to the set in order to watch. i wound up watching it with a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, and the two of us cried at the end. this was a truly well-written, heartfelt episode of the forbidden love between two cops who, i felt, really were (in Coop's words) \"the Lucky Ones\". it is episodes like this one that really make Cold Case one of the most captivating and much-loved works of television magic on CBS. i anxiously await more episodes, and a re-run of \"Forever Blue\" because i will always watch it again and again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1102bc24dab6420baa97c0744355e901", "input": "Review: You know all those letters to \"Father Christmas\" and \"Jesus\" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is \"Dead Letter Office\". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.\"Dead Letter Office\" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film \"Committed\" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.Despite that, \"Dead Letter Office\" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c524777c7ae4183b266936226a1c3f1", "input": "Review: Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying….sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better. But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm………..Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5ef247b669c42cb90c7fa9e84ecc6fe", "input": "Review: This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50b0fc4c35cb46cf85e62d10c2f32562", "input": "Review: A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-209d7b2625474bdba7b730be97e01827", "input": "Review: The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d365ce3c13444f3bbb66dcbad8c1d938", "input": "Review: This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-528adba24c304e789979720cbdfd4582", "input": "Review: This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f3cfe5dcfc24640b466566d1841376a", "input": "Review: I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4529e5ac5ea44c2a5f002953c861e18", "input": "Review: Title: Robot Jox (1990) Director: Stuart Gordon Cast: Gary Graham, Anne Marie Johnson, Paul Koslo Review: Stuart Gordon who we usually associate with extremely gory horror films such as Re-Animator, From Beyond, Dagon and Castle Freak, took a small detour here and did a little sci-fi flick. I stress the word \"little\" since this is a very low budget flick, and there in lies its main weakness.The story takes place in the future. A world in which the great superpowers (that according to this movie are the United States and Russia) duke out their differences not by going on a full blown world war...but by fighting gladiator style battles with gigantic robots. Our hero Achilles must go up against the evil Russian robot fighter called Alexander. Lots of cheap stop motion animation ensues.Well, the idea is awesome I guess. The great nations settleling territorial disputes with giant robots? Interesting premise and one that could have been handled properly if the proper budget had been available. Unfortunately what could have been a fun movie ends up being an embarrassment for an otherwise great director.I as a kid loved this movie, and I guess if you want any enjoyment out of this movie, you'll have to revert back to little kid mode to have some fun with it. I showed this film to some of my friends and as the movie progressed my friends where like \"what the hell is this piece of crap franco?\" And I'm like well this movie is a sci-fi by one of my favorite directors Stuart Gordon?\" But as the movie progressed into corny territory I almost felt like pressing stop and not having them go through that torture. I could go through it, cause I loved this film as a kid, and there's still a little nostalgia attached to watching it. But everyone else was just not going to get it.And I myself realized that the movie isn't really that good. First off. The movie is about giant robots kicking the hell out of each other. And in order to achieve this in a credible fashion you'd have to use some damn good special effects to make it work, expensive effects that would help us the audience suspend disbelief. But unfortunately this being a small scale movie, from a small scale company (Empire Pictures, which went bankrupt after making this film!)the effects only help us giggle and laugh at them. Heck even the sets and some of the wardrobe looks unfinished or half assed.OK granted, once you accept that you are watching a mixture of moderate stop animation and miniatures well you can sort of give in to the film and even enjoy the big robots kicking the hell out of each other. There are certain scenes when the robots are fighting that are kinda cool, and made me go \"thats why I liked thid movie!\" But every know and them, some crappy effect will take you right out of that protective little cocoon you were trying to hide in. And boom, your right back into realizing this film just doesn't live up to its premise.And heres another thing that sort of bothered me a bit about the movie. This movie is basically a movie for kids. You know, giant robots duking it out? Stop motion animation? Hello? But this movies dialogue had a lot of sexual innuendos and the violence gets a little bloody. So I kept asking myself is this a kids movie or not? After a while I just came to the conclusion that basically this was a kids movie with adult sensibilities, which really isn't a good mix.So for those of you who don't feel that certain naive childlike charm of watching two robots fighting each other and if you don't have a nostalgic connection to this movie (like I do) well Id suggest you steer clear away from this one. Gordons a great director, but this movie he made, just didn't do it for me. Well, at least not now that I'm a full grown adult.Rating: 2 out of 5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b54d483593b4311b25605fc131510ac", "input": "Review: The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsenseThe film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wigDirection is outdated Music is badAnil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f76ea1a4fb86443d905632fa50f50859", "input": "Review: \"Fungicide\" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful \"film\" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the \"film\"-makers will say that, yes, the \"film\" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.Starting the \"movie\" it wasn't as though I was expecting \"Citizen Kane\" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a \"fuse\" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).That summary is as good as the \"film\" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said \"NO.\" And those \"special\" effects. Well, they're \"special\" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The \"film\"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the \"movie.\" \"Fungicide\" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bdcde5df6744548be191519fa9eca82", "input": "Review: Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the \"legend\" up with substance.The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses (\"Nature Documentary\" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe975b6f65544d34b87884556cd9d588", "input": "Review: \"A Mouse in the House\" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the \"rear\" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8299ae48ecd4968888de580ee5aec53", "input": "Review: Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-209578af37de40b9b94f21bd902ee444", "input": "Review: but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst \"major release\" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-304fc8fc35bb410c9f8da9235c023520", "input": "Review: I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing \"Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth\" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.I also loved how the \"story\" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-feab715b87ac47c3aae658907db0a3b8", "input": "Review: I'd waited for some years before this movie finally got released in England, but was in many ways very pleased when I finally saw it. There are a lot of great things to the film, for a start the acting. Its not something I have all that much need for in a horror picture but the people in this film all put in fine work. This and the constantly gripping and interesting script, with a nice sorta Lovecraftian feel to it, give the film a real solid backbone. Add to this the doses of surreal nightmare imagery and occasional gruesome gore and the films a winner. It has my favorite kind of gore too, supernatural and splattery. Also, the characters of Marcus, the angry bodybuilding transsexual and Daisy, his mentally retarded lover/plaything are genuinely freakish and unnerving at times, and give a far out, anything goes sense of morbid grown up craziness which works well with the frequent Freudian overtones. This is one of the most impressive recent horror movies, far more shocking or out there than anything Hollywood can produce. My only gripe was that I wanted the ending to be darker in tone, but it still works, so on the whole I'd really recommend this to serious horror buffs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b65b24d325584c7b8b037bb61aa9a9cc", "input": "Review: I won't claim to be a fan of Ralph Bakshi, because i am not. I have only watched 5 of his animated films so far: Coonskin, Wizards, Fritz the Cat and Lord of the Rings and finally \"Fire and Ice\". What i CAN claim, is that i found \"Fire and Ice\" to be the most enjoyable of the lot. It is a straightforward fantasy tale of swords and sorcery along the lines of Conan the Barbarian, but the beautiful artwork, realistic animation and lively film score effectively lends a very classic charm to this movie.Deserving first mention, is the animation itself. I do not care what people say about rotoscoping but in my opinion Ralph Bakshi used that technique very effectively here. I was amazed at how realistic the movements of the characters were. The style of directing and the photo-realistic character designs made \"Fire and Ice\" feel more like a big budget fantasy blockbuster than a cartoon. Sadly the level of art detail tends to get a little inconsistent, especially near the end of the movie. Some scenes just look really flat with little to no body contour details or fabric folds and shadows on the characters.With realistic moving characters, realistic action would naturally follow. Not only was the action well choreographed, but it was really brutal. I would be so bold as to compare the brutality of the action to live action movies like Zack Snyder's 300. I did notice however that though there was blood shed, the blood splatters were kept to a minimum. Again, a great choice by the creative team that only heightens the viewing experience by not taking things too \"over the top\".Though i do not recognize any \"big names\" in the cast, the voice actors manage to deliver a satisfying performance; keeping the delivery of every line realistically subdued and only hamming it up in the case of the bad guys.Did i say bad guys?? yes i did. Because that is exactly what the story is about, a standard good vs evil tale. Nothing really original about the story which seems to merely be a mix of pre-existing fantasy film clichés that involve scantly clad warriors and maidens. Anyone looking for \"depth\" would be sorely disappointed. THe characters are not given much development and some of them like Nekron and Darkwolf are one dimensional at best(I did however hear rumor of some deleted scenes that explains Darkwolf's obsession with killing Nekron and his mother. Scenes like that deserved full restoration and should have been included in the final cut to add a level of depth to the show). In fact, i would not be surprised to find out that the whole movie was just a \"tech demo\" of sorts to showcase the awesome animation and art, with the story cobbled together and thrown in as an afterthought in order to pass it off as a proper \"movie\".A true classic of a bygone era, \"Fire and Ice\" really captures the blazing spirit of adventure and mysticism with its beautiful renderings of fantastic creatures and charming characters. It is a unique vision of a world created by Ralph Bakshi and artist Frank Frazetta with a good measure of action and suspense. Would it hold up to animated film standards of today? Definitely not. But i urge animation fans in general to \"get off your high horse\" and give this simple but beautiful film a chance to grow on you. It is Truly a gem of the 80s worth checking out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce0fe0f04f624ca8bc8a68421243cb3f", "input": "Review: I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom (\"You're not drinkin' again area ya's?\"), but he's a \"filmmaker\" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky \"inadvertently\" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or \"Mac the Knife\" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a \"poet.\"Spare me. \"I'm an artist,\" \"I'm a filmmaker.\" Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a \"creative\" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffe3ff8619eb43c982f4cc77fdec9552", "input": "Review: Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b921dfd4342d4673b5b6d7b06a70792a", "input": "Review: The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.Don't waste your time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ac03ef24e2f4d21a29e096d822e9563", "input": "Review: The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled \"Gorilla Warfare\" and number eleven is called \"The Gorilla\". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.Historicaly interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcd34deb1b2f400b9ae438a8e1491634", "input": "Review: What can one say about Elvira that hasn't already been said in the world's press? The classic comedienne that IS Elvira delivers in her first full-length big budget comedy masterpiece.From the very first movie frame thingy, Elvira packs an acting punch that clearly says Film Great....eat your heart out, Bette Davis! See a forlorn Elvira, see an excitable Elvira, see a jealous Elvira, see a murderous Elvira. You can do nothing but marvel at her acting prowess!At the heart of this comedy masterpiece is Elvira's desire for Las Vegas show stardom. Despite putting \"the boob back in the boobtube\" as a horror hostess (with the mostest), Elvira finds the small screen constrictive emotionally....and PHYSICALLY! Nuff said, she packs up her kitbag and heads East....a hotdog in one hand and a letter from her Aunt's lawyer outlining her inheritance 'windfall' in the other.I've seen this movie so many times, I can almost recite it verbatim....(verbatim would just be showing off)!Grab a copy, laugh yourself silly, learn the lines....Why she didn't win the Best Actress Oscar for this role is beyond me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ab01584f39a40c4ab1314371d27c970", "input": "Review: Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by \"the Pulse,\" it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ed4a3a984d64f1bbb69fad276661a51", "input": "Review: The movie \"Slugs\" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teensthat get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells \"You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!\" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic \"Pod People\" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate \"Slugs\". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of \"Pieces\" and \"Pod People\". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff6764df31954ac8a62bfd6893bfc2d3", "input": "Review: OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd9999aabf234e23b0849f7017af3f97", "input": "Review: ...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. \"Saving Grace,\" on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62bbc123567942d0b9a1b648e473c756", "input": "Review: It's hard for me to criticize anything that Mitzi Kapture does. She just radiates beauty and grace on the screen and is a phenomenal actress. That notwithstanding, yes, the plot was predictable. I think perhaps if Jill HAD slept with Richard then it may have made him a little crazier than he already was, which would have added more to the suspense. It would have also been nice to see Jill and her husband find out about Richard's little problem with his ex-wife, maybe a bit more back story. I was a little disappointed with the ending of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more closure with Zack's death and possibly closure with her husband. I do have to say though, I will never be able to look at a flare gun and not picture her standing there. It was a very fitting end for Richard. Of course, Mitzi ROCKED! I am so looking forward to her future projects. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-43bb3b8a95d44f658be22865bfd76cec", "input": "Review: A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United StatesJust CauseStarring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-333e27f0cf2441c082c73cee3ca9946d", "input": "Review: Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-264c71ddc1fc49c19ae920cfb0ad2c03", "input": "Review: This show was great, it wasn't just for kids which I thought at first, it is for the whole family.The first season was mostly about the father looking after is two daughters and son, he sadly passed away in season 2, I Could believe it when I heard it.I am clad they carried on with the show as that what would really happen in really life and I need to mention The Goodbye Episode it was so well made, it must of be so hard for them to film this , you could tell they were real tears in theirs eyes. I am 24 year old male and this episode did make me cry me as I know how they felt as my father died when I was 13 years too just like Roy.Season 2 and Season 3 had great comedy in there also season 3 had some of my Favorites such Freaky Friday, Secrets.I Still think the show was Strong enough to go on, I was disappointed that it ended, it was one the best no it was the best Family comedy show ever since Home Improvement and it could have been the next Friends.it should never have ended but still love watching the repeats everyday. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a125b8241a54c52b02ce5017691d1b4", "input": "Review: For me,this is one of the best movies i ever saw.Overcoming racism,struggling through life and proving himself he isn't just an ordinary \"cookie\" ,Carl Brashear is an amazing character to play ,who puts Cuba in his best light,best performance in his life.De Niro,who is a living legend gives THAT SOMETHING to the movie.Hated his character in movie,but he gives so much good acting to this film,great performance.And appearance of beautiful Charlize was and as always is a big plus for every movie. So if you haven't seen this movie i highly recommended for those who love bravery,greatness who seek inspiration.You must look this great drama. My Vote 9/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aae1835da38c48a2853ca0fdb697b378", "input": "Review: 12 year old Arnald Hillerman accidentally kills his older brother Eugene. His feelings are arrested by the fact that his family can not interact with him (or feel it is not the right thing to do). His ONLY refuge is his grandfather, who is the ONLY one who seems to have compassion on him. The Realism will captivate \"true-2-life\" movie lovers, but will not satisfy those that desire action & thrills. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7f5625c16ff490a9928fc02cef5575d", "input": "Review: *McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) *McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly \"classic Seventies cinema\", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the \"dark brown glow\" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying \"Altman-esque\" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c815125a6494777b155f6c6110598ab", "input": "Review: Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-883333e207ee494c8dbbfe84334567fe", "input": "Review: Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.\"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark\" starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her \"endowments\" and sexiness as a joke (\"And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads\"). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-474327cbcfe74ad7a468fd7e8ac4d223", "input": "Review: The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot. This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell \"you're stupid!\" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you. Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-103937dfd9464abc8270aa7862b0d7e1", "input": "Review: What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. \"Right to Die\" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.Spoilers here: Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great \"aloof\" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.End of Spoiler.As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, \"Right to Die\" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1b712b8f6854a589e30b58077c1c9e4", "input": "Review: Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.Nicely done, Paul and Peter! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2c76b6c20864c90b719bf0f794d2fbd", "input": "Review: Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-326ed830e3154efebd068588fc5ed85c", "input": "Review: When I noticed that \"Hamish Macbeth\" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name \"Hamish Macbeth\" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-531087ff2af7454cb5dcb3c232c38b95", "input": "Review: A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the \"Bette of Roses\" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9732c3031f204ca3b4fe647f24ac350d", "input": "Review: Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, \"You can't paint that! But I want to!\" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she \"paints for herself!\" yet falls for the first person she sees.Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5475aee439ef4f07944531e6485f0b40", "input": "Review: At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: \"No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.\". Indeed.'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: \"I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-544ef7dc43e7420baa26c02f3dc314e8", "input": "Review: This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d271498d526a4664910633b950d0aa65", "input": "Review: The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.To be continued... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-386c85edaae64e30bbf29c934239d197", "input": "Review: Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in \"Still Standing\" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in \"Brokeback Mountain\",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-787fc1ac80234975832b94d3a889b2c9", "input": "Review: \"Witchery\" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady – an aging actress or something who always dresses in black – starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of \"The Evil Dead\". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12613d24926f425bae6784a4532e1691", "input": "Review: This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike \"Yes\", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.But the film's title is \"Ghosts\", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them… Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Françoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Françoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. \"Marie is dead,\" concludes Françoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a \"niña\", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed8a7edd44bb444ba632ba4887a99e72", "input": "Review: John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no \"horror\" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of \"Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up.\" Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says \"I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you.\" HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. \"Why Can't We Be Friends\" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e9172ba07e943de876798cf7c977695", "input": "Review: Claire Denis has demonstrated repeatedly that film does not need to tell a story, that it is sufficient to create an experience that allows the viewer to take the ingredients and make of them what they will.Ostensibly the idea within the framework of a most non-linear film is the older man living on the French-Swiss border, a man devoted to his dogs, who still has a lover, but whose cardiac status increasingly threatens his life. He has a son with a little family who infrequently meet with him, but when he discovers he is in need of a heart transplant he opts for going to Tahiti via Japan to obtain a heart transplant on the black market and to rekindle a long lost relationship with a son he had form a Tahitian women years ago.What Denis does with this outline of a story is use her camera to explore the loneliness of the soul, the vastness of nature, man's interaction with people vs animals, etc. Much of the time the 'film' doesn't make sense, but that is because we try too hard to connect all the dots laid out before us in beautiful pictures. Life is sort of like that: we look, see, observe, integrate, process, and make of it what we will.In using this form of film making (much as she did in the strangely beautiful 'Beau Travail') Claire Denis has developed a signature technique. Whether or not the viewer finds the finished product rewarding has much to do with our individual methods of processing visual and conceptual information. This is an interesting and visually captivating film, but many viewers will find it an overly long discourse about very little. Perhaps watching again will change that. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d955046a7abe4c1a85286cd9a81fdf2a", "input": "Review: Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on \"I must be high\". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be \"high\" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.With a production team called \"Shock-o-rama\" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered Yours Truly,The General Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db6c6e93e0534ea2a3adb5b16c89652f", "input": "Review: I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...(9/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e600c289319406e810eff97eb9c7a57", "input": "Review: This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbdaf8e6dceb41409133cf84480e8e21", "input": "Review: Halfway through Lajos Koltai's \"Evening,\" a woman on her deathbed asks a figure appearing in her hallucination: \"Can you tell me where my life went?\" The line could be embarrassingly theatrical, but the woman speaking it is Vanessa Redgrave, delivering it with utter simplicity, and the question tears your heart out.Time and again, the film based on Susan Minot's novel skirts sentimentality and ordinariness, it holds attention, offers admirable performances, and engenders emotional involvement as few recent movies have. With only six months of the year gone, there are now two memorable, meaningful, worthwhile films in theaters, the other, of course, being Sara Polley's \"Away from Her.\" Hollywood might have turned \"Evening\" into a slick celebrity vehicle with its two pairs of real-life mothers and daughters - Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson, and Meryl Streep and Mamie Gummer. Richardson is Redgrave's daughter in the film (with a sister played by Tony Collette), and Gummer plays Streep's younger self, while Redgrave's youthful incarnation is Claire Danes.Add Glenn Close, Eileen Atkins, Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, and a large cast - yes, it could have turned into a multiple star platform. Instead, Koltai - the brilliant Hungarian cinematographer of \"Mephisto,\" and director of \"Fateless\" - created a subtle ensemble work with a \"Continental feel,\" the story taking place in a high-society Newport environment, in the days leading up to a wedding that is fraught with trouble.Missed connections, wrong choices, and dutiful compliance with social and family pressures present quite a soap opera, but the quality of the writing, Koltai's direction, and selfless acting raise \"Evening\" way above that level, into the the rarified air of English, French (and a few American) family sagas from a century before its contemporary setting.Complex relationships between mothers and daughters, between friends and lovers, with the addition of a difficult triangle all come across clearly, understandably, captivatingly. Individual tunes are woven into a symphony.And yet, with the all the foregoing emphasis on ensemble and selfless performances, the stars of \"Evening\" still shine through, Redgrave, Richardson, Gummer (an exciting new discovery, looking vaguely like her mother, but a very different actress), Danes carrying most of the load - until Streep shows up in the final moments and, of course, steals the show. Dancy and Wilson are well worth the price of admission too.As with \"Away from Her,\" \"Evening\" stays with you at length, inviting a re-thinking its story and characters, and re-experiencing the emotions it raises. At two hours, the film runs a bit long, but the way it stays with you thereafter is welcome among the many movies that go cold long before your popcorn. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-beb0fcb730894eb49ebc1be11e820665", "input": "Review: The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0c864a0ceac461580594c2aa2712a51", "input": "Review: Cinematography--Compared to 'The Wrestler,' a degree of verite and cinematic skill that disarms the viewer, and then hypnotizes as well.Acting--The dialogue is minimal, but the pauses and silence poignant.Story--The conflict in a 'balkanized' Denmark is volatile, as we saw recently jihad murders in the Netherlands and riots in France. While I harbor no love for Islam, the departure from the West from Christian values holds no cause for celebration.The director of this film managed to mirror the two societies in a way that belabored neither, emphasizing the development of Aicha as an individual who became a champion, not so much in the ring, but to all those around her. Even her worst . . . I will stop here to avoid the spoiler. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-560ce5971d44466c882b656a456d9d60", "input": "Review: This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way. Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.I liked this movie .. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3a1aa650b674289b62b1f16091efa2f", "input": "Review: This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28daaf8cab064a059eed48e220549eb3", "input": "Review: I absolutely love this game to death. Ever since I was 9 years old (I am now 15). It has great graphics, characters, magic, weapons, additions, and don't forget the ultimately awesome dragoon forms! I am still waiting for a remake, prequel, or a sequel to this spectacular video game. You play as Dart, a young swordsman who has the potential to be quite the hero. On this adventure you encounter wondrous creatures and boss fights. You also encounter some friends on the way who have their own special element. Such as Fire, Darkness, Water/Ice, Thunder/Lightning, Earth, Light, and Wind. There are also items known as dragoon spirits, which allow you to transform into magical creatures of legend. Dragons, wizards, creatures called winglies and evil creatures you'll have to face on this adventure of action-packed thrills and excitement. One of my all time favorite games, The Legend of Dragoon! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-209d7abd983644c2a3f86157e88a2198", "input": "Review: Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse)… more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos… especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0cedf423bdc343a7adb4aaef4c0ed06e", "input": "Review: Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8803a7945f4e45fb8908889c2903c19b", "input": "Review: I had seen this movie when it got released, and when I was 12 years old :) And I still vividly recollect the wonderful scenes of how the hero/heroine escape every time when faced with danger :) And the best feature of the movie was the portrayal of the villain! I think many so-called action movies copied a lot many \"escape scenes\" from this movie!! And not only does it never impress me when I see such copying, it always increases my appreciation for this masterpiece! :) The lead actors have acted wonderfully. The slow and realistic development of the chemistry b/w the hero and heroine was extremely natural and wonderfully portrayed. As children, we felt that the love that developed b/w them was very natural :) The way they face and overcome all their trials and tribulations together was something that can make even kids realize the value of true love, sacrifice and caring. I recommend that every person see this movie when given a chance!! --Vijay. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2a7ce723b2447debd9dd77db3b570d3", "input": "Review: I grew up with H.R. Pufnstuff and the dashingly talented Jack Wild and now my daughters are adoring fans of Jack Wild too. This movie is exactly what movies should be: fun and entertaining. This movie is not limited to children either. A lot of the dialogue is directed to adults and Witchiepoo's performance is something you do not want to miss. The music in this movie suited Jack Wild and Mama Cass beautifully. And as a Jack Wild fan, I would never miss the chance to watch him dance or hear him sing. Knowing the hard life that Jack had now makes this movie even more wonderful especially when he sings the opening song \"If I Could\". It makes me pause in loving adoration for him for giving me wonderful childhood memories that I am now passing on to my children. Let's all go to Living Island where there is friendship and fun! And keep Jack Wild's memory alive by passing Pufnstuff on to others. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06e23e4b1b124a2fba4b3b5c6552a081", "input": "Review: Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the \"no expectation\" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the \"romantic\" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2bb7109769f44beb925206055e7cc7e", "input": "Review: One of the most unheralded great works of animation. Though it makes the most sophisticated use of the \"cut-out\" method of animation (a la \"South Park\"), the real talent behind \"Twice Upon a Time\" are the vocal characterizations, with Lorenzo Music's (Carlton from TV's \"Rhoda\") Woody Allen-ish Ralph-the-all-purpose-Animal being the centerpiece. The \"accidental nightmare\" sequence is doubtless one of the best pieces of animation ever filmed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-218377a818314598999c42267e4d08f9", "input": "Review: This movie's origins are a mystery to me, as I only know as much as IMDB did before I rented it. I assume that before \"Starship Troopers\", \"Killshot\" was one of the countless unaired pilots that never made it to network, cable, or otherwise. The new title of \"Kill Shot\" is comically thrown into the opening sequence, the first of many quick clues that this was not ever intended for the cinema. The quick cuts, cheesy \"Melrose Place\" music, and short 2-second close-up candid shots of the main actors let you know what you're in for.And I don't mind at all. I rented this movie seeing the repackaging that puts Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards on the cover in front of a volleyball net thinking it would be funny to see them in a movie besides the SciFi travesty of Starship Troopers (an excellent book, in my opinion, not so hot a movie - but that's another review). After looking it up on IMDB, my roommate and I surmised that the pilot was dragged up after the apparent success of Troopers and Richards own career (see Bond-Girl and Wild Things references here). They threw in a sex scene involving a minor character to reach the coveted R-rated status - coveted in suspense Video Rental sections, that is. In any event, they should have left it unrated if you're trying to sell it in the suspense/softcore porn section.All in all, it's entertaining. I hate to spoil the fun of telling you it's a TV pilot, though. That was the biggest pull while watching it - when you expect a cinematic movie and get a TV show, the differences between them make themselves more clear than usual.Would I rent it again? No. Would I watch this TV show? Well, why not - it's better than Baywatch. And their meager attempts at hitting all demographics would have done well back in the mid 90s. Token black guy (who's gay to avoid the TV taboo of inter-racial dating), token Asian (Japanese, I assume from the name Koji) more adept at science and computers than talking to women, beautiful, intelligent Latina pre-med student who has everything going for her except her family's bank account - this show probably would have done ok.But as a movie it just cracks me.I gave it a 7 out of 10, considering what it was and what it was forced to become. It made for a very enjoyable evening, and that's all I ask of rentals. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a14b19c25ab48d48384e93878896038", "input": "Review: This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a \"UFOlogist\" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2853b60d0676476faf6b40fe430d3967", "input": "Review: This movie is bufoonery! and I loved it! The \"dragon lord\" (Jacky Chan) and his buddy, \"cowboy\", totally made the movie fun, meaningful, and just plain silly. The movie is a rare blend of a good vs. evil fight and (somehow) the wonders and fun that is growing up. Long Shao Ye takes the viewer through the daily activities of the young \"dragon lord\" (so named because he is the son of a wealthy family) and \"cowboy\", which include implementing clever, elaborate ways to escape studying (with the help of the entire household, including the tutor), competing in rather boyish (and idiotically interesting) ways to gain the affection of a local girl, competing in \"soccer\" (you will see what i mean) and the list goes on. Somehow they find themselves in the midst of a fight to save the a shipment of valuable antiques and the lives of several people.The movie has its serious moments. But they do not depress, but rather inspire. The playfulness of the boys are not lost in this exchange, but is actually employed against evil. What I really loved about this movie is how it ends. Not the typical confrontation (which in itself was awesome), but well, you'll see. Let me just say it truly captures the spirit of the movie.silly, witty, meaningful, and nostalgic. great movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09cbe6b4315c4db387ba19e5b9d4cd27", "input": "Review: ...dont read any plot summaries because in words the plot might seem trivial, brain-dead and pointless. The film is excellent, the acting by both Denzel and Dakota (she will go sky high, trust me on that)are just fabulous, and the plot is mind blowing. Actually \"fabulous\" is a small word to use for such talented actors. The film is just based on actual facts and some characters are not fictional, a fact that adds up to the shock that i was having during and after the film. If you are fond of both actors and of somewhat deranged films, you still haven't watched your favorite one yet...Trust me, in the end you will have a weird and inexplicable feeling. The film is awesome, see it, rent it, buy it or whatever...just don't miss it Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef956ae4b9b445f1892e10ea91d37220", "input": "Review: An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's \"Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora\" (\"The Cameraman's Revenge\", or \"The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman\") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the \"Gay Dragonfly\" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a \"business trip\" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: \"Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie.\" He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that \"the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future…\" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles – it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d6ea656be834678bd1e6c1ed3594003", "input": "Review: Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.No film epitomized this more than \"Stroker Ace\" which makes \"Cannonball Run\" look like a classic and \"Cannonball Run II\" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c01bccdf8194fb5970f12b33fbacc29", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f929c1dc8cd649b9973a7b00abfa1f79", "input": "Review: What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no… It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store… The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy (\"The Quatermass Experiment\") and Dick O'Neill (\"Wolfen\") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b57ac696ab8e4b44941fbd998cefd219", "input": "Review: Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.Plot- A family without a mother and 3 \"dads\" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.1.5/10 or: D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c4eac7963534efba4eb2d37a60e434d", "input": "Review: Somerset Maugham's characters are brought to life in RKO's \"Of Human Bondage\"; but the movie is a too skeletal version of the novel, with Bette Davis' star-making performance sucking up all of the energy. Otherwise, it's the story of Leslie Howard (as Philip Carey); he dreams of becoming a painter, but is told he has no talent for the arts. As the film progresses, Mr. Howard's struggles, instead, to become a doctor. His efforts seem to indicate some bad advice regarding the arts; though successful in medicine, his painting seemed easier - also, note the symbolism of his disability, a \"club foot\" (explained in the film).Along the way (right away, in this version), Howard becomes infatuated with waitress Davis (as Mildred Rogers). Davis' characterization of \"Mildred\" is extraordinary, culminating in a spectacular speech, when she tells Howard, among other things, that she had to \"WIPE MY MOUTH!\" after kissing him. Howard also performs well, but the story fails to explain his prolonged fascination and love for Davis; so, their performances are wasted. Still, a film to watch for the acting, including some good supporting players. Bette Davis' characterization was famous for inspiring a \"write-in\" campaign for the 1934 \"Best Actress\" Academy Award. For the record, she placed third. The results were: 1. Claudette Colbert - \"It Happened One Night\" 2. Norma Shearer - \"The Barretts of Wimpole Street\" 3. Bette Davis - \"Of Human Bondage\" 4. Grace Moore - \"One Night of Love\" ******* Of Human Bondage (6/28/34) John Cromwell ~ Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Reginald Denny Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb50153c12db43f4b2889fa0283559fe", "input": "Review: This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0db07eac5a1f4d06a5d4793a6c1973f3", "input": "Review: The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot \"The Cage.\" The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier \"The Enemy Within\" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a1c2dfbc2c24cb9a1b155f27bc197f0", "input": "Review: When I decided to watch THE BARBARIANS, starring those twin bodybuilders, Peter and David Paul, I thought it couldn't be that bad because the film was directed by Ruggero Deodato, who has a reputation for creating sleazy movies but well made sleazy movies. Well, THE BARBARIANS is remarkably trashy action/adventure movie that wants to be another CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and fails at every level. The look of the film is all wrong. Some scenes were well shot but the tone and the schintzy, tacky \"disco\" look of the clothes and hair people are adorned with just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, even for a low budget flick like this one.Richard Lynch looks like an old woman with that ridiculous hairdo and costume. He's supposed to be menacing but he comes across as a buffoon. And it's funny to see Eva LaRue Callahan, one of the stars of ALL MY CHILDREN, appear in her first movie, walking around in skimpy fur bikini. I'm sure she wants this dreck to disappear from the face of the earth! The so-called Barbarian twins are okay as the muscle bound heroes but it's almost impossible to construct a proper critique of their acting because their roles are, like everything else in this mess, really ill-conceived. The only way the film tries to differentiate one twin from the other is by having one twin wear a loincloth that covers his ass, while the other twin's loincloth barely covers his muscular butt. I'm not kidding! Don't ask me who's who though.Deodato must have been really desperate to agree to make this film. And his desperation is reflected perfectly in this trashy flick. It's just bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d1d4c6521e34cd0ba211cc8343dd2f2", "input": "Review: The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few \"heart-wrenching\" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a \"Leave it to Beaver\" world? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-965e8414a363449281bb5672560c1d47", "input": "Review: From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e624dff345345f79e33e0e5afad4b25", "input": "Review: This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a5851c30016470ca43711e257eb8823", "input": "Review: This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d48e90c0b7984b8c8ec21cfa072a4ba6", "input": "Review: What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d719dfc5d9c47ffb7b7514d21da2fbf", "input": "Review: I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets \"great performances\" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d19f72f2fc8246cd909e4c6e29b16567", "input": "Review: The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.The original 1943 novel, called \"The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton\" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d42b2a248a94431684de8231b0387c24", "input": "Review: I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-979e5a0e41f2488a82c846a331a021f1", "input": "Review: Of those comments here before mine, I mostly agree with Edyarb's. The story and the script apparently had potential to be funny, but though managing at some points, in other places it failed. You could see them wanting to make a joke, but no one in the audience laughed. (Also agree with Edyarb's view on the end credits: leave it normal or make it cool, but not what they've done now.) OK, that gives a more negative feeling than what I actually had watching the movie. I enjoyed it; it was pleasant entertainment for a night and definitely didn't feel like a waste of money to get the ticket. The best jokes are the ones that go a little bit outside of the expected and are fairly mature, like Luke Wilson's character Matt asking the super chick \"P*nis or bed?\" when she told him she'd \"get him a new one\" after a wild night in bed, ending up breaking the bed and leaving Matt sore.I cannot, however, agree with bgs1614,who says that the film could earn an 'R' rating - there was absolutely nothing in the film to justify that. Some sexual acts yes, but nothing explicit, only humorous, and no nudity whatsoever. (Maybe he was at a prescreening that showed more...?) I'd like to compare this to two recent films I went to see with no expectations whatsoever: Superman Returns and Click. I didn't really expect anything from either one - I was a big fan of the original Superman films and the trailer for Click only showed it as a potentially chauvinistic (which I wouldn't oppose) film. Superman surprised me with actually having me feel good(goosebumps!) about seeing his first heroic deed, like seeing a long lost friend and feeling happy about it. But for the rest of the story I'd rather watch My Super Ex-girlfriend, at least it offers some surprises. Click again was a TOTAL surprise, much better and deeper than the trailer and about five minutes away from being a really excellent movie. The jokes also work much better than in Ex-girlfriend, both the naughty ones and the more advanced ones.Anyway, the only reason I compared these three films is that they are the three last ones I've seen, within a very short period, and also because I went to all of these with basically no expectations at all. I'd rank them Click, Girlfriend, Superman. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c364d667f1e4b0e98312d5122e046bb", "input": "Review: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, everand before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not thereediting-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7df6fdbfcc2d4d80a2b71f11cf006bf9", "input": "Review: Jonathan Demme's directorial debut for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures rates highly as one of the finest chicks-in-chains 70's grindhouse classics to ever grace celluloid. Beauteous Russ Meyer starlet Eric (\"Vixen,\" \"Beyond the Valley of the Dolls\") Gavin gives a robust, winning performance as a brassy, resilient new fish who does her best to persevere in a grimy, hellish penitentiary. The always fabulous Barbara Steele offers a deliciously wicked portrayal as the mean, crippled, sexually frustrated warden (her erotic dream about doing a slow, steamy striptease in front of the lady inmates is a real dilly). Longtime favorite 70's B-movie actress Roberta (\"The Arousers,\" \"Unholy Rollers\") Collins delivers a hilariously raunchy and endearing turn as a cheerfully forward, foul-mouthed kleptomaniac felon who tells a gut-busting dirty joke about Pinnochio. Lynda Gold (a.k.a. Crystin Sinclaire of Tobe Hooper's \"Eaten Alive\" and Curtis Harrington's \"Ruby\") makes her lively film debut as uninhibited wildcat Crazy Alice. And the ever-cuddly Cheryl \"Rainbeaux\" Smith does a lovely, touching reprise of her fragile frightened innocent role from \"Lemora: A Child's Tale of the Supernatural.\" Although this picture does deliver the expected ample amount of coarse language, nudity, rape and violence, it's still by no means a typically crass and sexist piece of lurid mindless filth; the movie very effectively explores the many ways in which men cruelly exploit women and strongly asserts the pro-feminist notion that women can overcome any obstacles if they band together into a group so they can bravely face their misogynistic oppressors as one mighty fighting force. Demme's zesty, confidant direction comes through with a glorious abundance of astutely observed incidental details and delightful moments of engagingly quirky human behavior. Furthermore, both Tak Fujimoto's vibrant cinematography and John Cale's marvelously dolorous oddball blues score are 100% on the money excellent. Patrick Wright (Sheriff Mack in the uproariously awful cheap-rubber-monster-suit creature feature howler \"Track of the Moonbeast\") has a sidesplitting bit as a jerky cop who has his car stolen by a trio of prison escapees when he stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Lively, rousing and immensely enjoyable, \"Caged Heat\" qualifies as absolutely essential viewing for 70's drive-in movie fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a164b3530a348c08076f6fbe063709a", "input": "Review: The premise of the story is simple: An old man living alone in the woods accidentally stumble upon a murder of a small child, and tries to convince the police that the murder has occurred. Though very little dialog is provided throughout the film, the visual narrative told by the camera's eye alone made the film quite engaging. The setting of the gray woods conveys a feeling of loneliness, which complements the quietness of the characters themselves. We can also sense helplessness in the old man's inability to convince the police of the murder, which parallels the silenced child's inability to tell her own story.True horror lies in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and irrationality. This film successfully addresses these elements by visuals alone, rather than relying on cheap sound effects or blood and gore that other bad horror films use when the narrative is weak.Cleverly, the story unfolds at a slow pace to build up tension for a few creepy and startling moments. The ending is also unexpected and believable. Reminiscent of Japanese horror films, such as \"The Ring,\" and \"Dark Water,\" or English horror films, such as \"Lady in Black,\" and \"The Innocents,\" this film provides viewers the experience of true atmosphere horror. I recommend anyone who enjoys a good chilling to the bone scare to give this film a try.By the way, if you haven't seen the films I just mentioned above, you might want to give them a try as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2f8a75303554a00ae005d27c5d11e2d", "input": "Review: I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e84e234f17b14735a5b383055d91b99e", "input": "Review: JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the boxTo give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wantsThe film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculousOne wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the storyEven there are several cringeworthy scenesDirection by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forcedAnil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7754e8c2f8e04a5db323ae0e1394e8e1", "input": "Review: The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-90ae8ca401174735ac6f8d2fc6f340e3", "input": "Review: A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2be05881c024166ace925c73ea29cbf", "input": "Review: Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cd85a030b1847e4b933ce2da5d3ff4e", "input": "Review: You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, \"How did it get made,\" because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.No. The question is \"Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?\" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.And \"dcreasy2001\" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8cc86265f70488a906fdd84d0c35347", "input": "Review: This is a comedy of morals, so occasionally a gentle touch of bitterness occurs, but a lightness soften all sarcasm and irony flows till all of a sudden one moment will halt your heart and changes everything.This film, marvelously written and directed, is a gem that shines perfectly, with beautiful acting by all. Jean-Louis Trintignant is exquisite as usual, and Romy Schneider is a pearl, perfect and glowing, that is not to be missed. A truly wonderful film !! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67315911040b4600903b987e96d27c96", "input": "Review: Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.Why was this even made? 2/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eec1a01576d4425cb793a42975df726f", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe that in 1997 David Duchovny was at the top of his fame, with X-Files, one of the best sci-fi series ever, being at the top of the glory. Nine years later he is almost forgotten, and his tentatives to make it on the big screen failed miserably. I cannot even explain why, he is a fair actor, but probably his moment of fame cast him in a eternal role that takes big talent to break from.At the same time Angelina Jolie was much less known, and she was really lucky that a film like 'Playing God' did not led her career into a dead-end. Fortunately for her, 'The Bone Collector' and 'Girl, Interrupted' were waiting beyond the corner, and when Lara Croft came, her career was launched.There is not too much to be told about this film. It's the only big screen film of Andy Wilson, and there must be a reason. All is banal and most of what happens on the screen expected in this story of an ex-doctor who saves the life of a shooting victim in a bar only to find himself working for the mob. The off-screen voice is especially bad, with a moralistic text that kills any shade of cinematographic experience from the film. You probably will not meet the film but in DVD rental stores, or on TV. Try to look for something better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb75b7abd1ad4bbebe6dd0a4f89f7f07", "input": "Review: This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ce6885cf76849afad70f8006d02882c", "input": "Review: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, everand before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not thereediting-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-80928bd0e02d4fe7a98c3420110b3869", "input": "Review: This bogus journey never comes close to matching the wit and craziness of the excellent adventure these guys took in their first movie. This installment tries to veer away from its prequel to capture some new blood out of the joke, but it takes a wrong turn and journeys nowhere interesting or funny.There's almost a half-hour wasted on showing the guys doing a rock concert (and lots of people watching on \"free TV\"--since when does that happen?) Surely the script writer could have done something more creative; look at how all the random elements of the first movie were neatly tied up together by a converging them at the science presentation. Not in this film, which pretty much ended the Bill & Ted franchise. The joke was over.The Grim Reaper is tossed into the mix, for whatever reason. This infusion, like the whole plot, is done poorly and lacks sparks for comedy or audience involvement. There's a ZZ Top impression, hammered in for no reason. There's lights, smoke, mirrors, noise. But nothing really creative or funny.Skip this bogus thing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc4e2dbff90042baa80ea96da962074e", "input": "Review: I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the \"Halloween\"s or \"Friday the Thirteenth\"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary. What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .) The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!! This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try \"Reversal of Fortune\". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson. The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the \"Gumby\" short, however, it makes for good viewing. Two stars for \"The Screaming Skull\"; eight stars for the MST3K version. And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: \"How bad is this film?\" \"You have no idea!\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddfe2cfe0b254c6f8f5e153b40f8f6e0", "input": "Review: This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b5754aa2da94b87b383c23e49a716b1", "input": "Review: A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to \"the Iranians.\" Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of \"Silk Stalkings\" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged \"drama\"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked \"one-liners\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b86f4e3491a5468e94ec4eea470ce6ca", "input": "Review: Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to indie film lovers.However, I really want to note the similarities between parts of this film and Nichols' Closer. One scene especially where Adrian Grenier's character is questioning Rosario Dawson's about her sex life while he was away is remarkably similar to the scene in Closer where Clive Owen's character is questioning Julia Roberts, although it is acted with less harshness and intensity in \"Love.\" Also note that \"Anna\" is the name of both Dawson's and Roberts' character. Can't be coincidence. Now Closer is based on Patrick Marber's play and supposedly this film is loosely based on Arthur Schnitzler's \"Reigen\" so I'm not sure how this connection formed.Anyone have an idea? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-430f1d89d8c24db8b331032abc603a6b", "input": "Review: After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcce6c6190dc4e989e55f412e606ea50", "input": "Review: Contrary to popular belief, this title , to me at least, is not so very bad. In fact. I regard it as a favoured film of all time. The welding of stories wasn't structured too well when you consider the differences between the series, however despite all this, you can watch it quite happily. For a feature film of its day, the scenes are well proportioned and the characters remain consistently believable.The sound/audio track is a personal favourite of mine. Nearly everything has a correct sound effect and many of the voices suit the characters much better than their, now badly cast US dub, counterparts. The sync is perfect in every shot. I had a few issues with the casting for the 'alien' voices (please forgive the crude naming, it has been a while since i've seen it). Otherwise however, the cast seemed perfectly balanced. I feel and believe in the characters of this movie. Dubs are often a subject i rarely agree with from so long ago. I loved the OSD's from back then but the castings often let series down.At this point i would like to add that this was one of the first anime i saw in my life. It has historical value to me, but even after seeing the original Megazone 23 it remained stronger and more watched in my collection.To my knowledge the title only ever made it to the US in Texas. Personally i think its a big shame. Had the correct audience been subject to it, i think Robotech the Movie would have been accepted and not tarnished over the years. I am involved with anime each day of my life and everyone i have shown this movie thought it was a nicely put together title.Watching the film after its separate components will allow the viewer to notice the evident plot holes between shows. However, without seeing the originals, a viewer wouldn't really notice. Since the animation is identical in style, there was no reason to question it back in its day. The UK had very limited access to anime. Laser discs were the most productive media. Personally i like the way Carl had the balls to at least push the genre. I mean Harmony wasn't going to put up the cash for the series to get publicised.Despite the few picky faults people have had with this film, The eighties feel of it keeps me in love. If you watch Megazone 23 now, to its original Japanese audio, or the new dub, i believe you will be greatly disappointed with the OSD. Cast your minds back to the original Bubblegum Crisis Dub soundtrack and imagine new eighties audio to E.V.E.Saying all this. This film's popularity nowadays is most likely down to its rarity on the open market. Personally, it spawned a collection for me. I'm now scouring the world for merchandise from the three components that made it up and if i ever get to meet Carl Macek, ill shake his hand for the effort, and buy him a pint or a crate for getting me into anime. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-49d7afd01e484315832614f6962b3227", "input": "Review: Cradle of FearThis isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as \"a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror\".This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, \"Did I just see what I thought I did\", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the \"Sick Room\", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab297d92ff804400bba61fdd7fb4136c", "input": "Review: This is undoubtedly one of the funniest movies ever made. Amitabh as a country bumpkin, Arjun Singh, is hilarious. The best thing is the laughter never stops. The plot is a same-old same-old story where child is separated from mother who sacrifices everything for her duty - with a happy reunion at the end. There are villains (Ranjit) and there are brothers (Sashi Kapoor) and there are vixens (Parveen Babhi) and there are lovers (Smita Patil) and there is a blind brother and a grandfather thrown in for good measure. But this movie is about Amitabh and thats all you remember at then end.Amitabh comes to the city to make a decent living and his dialogue delivery and mannerisms are hilarious. Later in the movie he turns into the Angry Young Man he is famous for but the humour stays. Memorable parts include his walking, talking and speaking english, the song (pad gungaroo re bhand, meera nachi thi) and everything with his dadoo.All in all I was rolling with laughter throughout the movie. If you want 3 hours of entertainment with Amitabh at his absolute best - this is it. It will easily give it a 10/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94428b27be814fcbb60e188452b18bbc", "input": "Review: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers — not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure — you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood \"9th Gate.\"If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all — at all except a redhead wig.I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; \"Rear Window.\" The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine. Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c601dd6cea8649d68d1176c9ef10c8fd", "input": "Review: This kind of film has become old hat by now, hasn't it? The whole thing is syrupy nostalgia turned in upon itself in some kind of feedback loop.It sure sounds like a good idea: a great ensemble cast, some good gags, and some human drama about what could have/might have been. Unfortunately, there is no central event that binds them all together, like there was in \"The Big Chill\", one of those seminal movies that spawned copycat films like this one. You end up wanting to see more of one or two particular people instead of getting short takes on everyone. The superficiality this creates is not just annoying, it's maddening. The below-average script doesn't help. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b64732c0a9c4c9dafaa45399c87df22", "input": "Review: The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it...\"Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization\")From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a89612ded8840cabe2117ab68c56b8a", "input": "Review: Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88d77012dcc14d29a52471906952bfdc", "input": "Review: In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68ecd34c5a9f4bde9311435d649e12ab", "input": "Review: For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's \"The Haunting of Hill House\") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a21b8f2d8434f5db80ffbec90c6c150", "input": "Review: This movie grabbed me with the incredible opening sequence which tricked me into a complete reversal of perspective, so I was hooked by the time the title came on. The theme of this movie is that everyone is acting, trying to re-invent themselves, but not in a tricky way like Identity or the Usual Suspects, but in the way we all try to make whatever banal life we find ourselves in a little more interesting. The scenes in the chicken warehouses are spectacular. At one point Jorgen (who owns the chicken farm) attends a seminar in laughing, where he's the worst student. His discomfort at this lets you see the depth of his yearning to change himself. The movie made me wonder about the hidden mysteries that lie behind the surface of the most commonplace people I see every day. There's not a lot of plot here. Guessing the old man's secret is pretty easy, but the fascination lies in trying to guess what all the other characters will do when they figure it out. This movie appealed to me in the same way that Sideways did, although the characters couldn't be more dissimilar. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f01cc6aa4774d708b935bfcc7f483ab", "input": "Review: ****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of \"The Crater Lake Monster\" to be a total surprise****A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call \"The Crater Lake Monster\" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for \"The Crater Lake Monster\". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't \"superheating\" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like \"The Crater Lake Monster\". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c257237a24f4b8391bde8c3ae4525d1", "input": "Review: I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cdb2a9281a14323aa2a40febcdecf48", "input": "Review: Or \"Marlowe At Sea\". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women \"slim\" and \"dames\" and other such nonsense, is the only \"real male\" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in \"Casablanca\", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the \"cool lone cynic\" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant \"cool babe\" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called \"sexual innuendo\" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. \"Just purse your lips and whistle...\". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.If you're interested in reading my \"biographies\" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cec2844c10a54787ae2645cd9a4696c4", "input": "Review: Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae2610546af949179b2bf0acdae0ccdf", "input": "Review: If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3160287cec104ed48f7ada016421a4d6", "input": "Review: As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame \"judging\" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c7b32408869456286b8615340c23be6", "input": "Review: It is very unfortunate when a movie such as this is made. A great deal of work and money has been put into a film that is amateur at best.The editing drags on, there are obvious mistakes that could have been corrected easily in a second take, and the soundtrack is unimaginative. So much more could have been done with this video movie. I guess they ran out of time, or videotape.Hand-held shots have a distinct amateur feel to them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-169495fd37ea46faacd77d4ddc3c0b2b", "input": "Review: Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever \"really\" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! It is one thing to rent a \"bad\" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be \"funny\" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of \"The Forsaken\" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The \"original\" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af3d08de0cd843219b0b59ae51776be9", "input": "Review: Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b85ffbdbfbc247319d8cfc283102d9b7", "input": "Review: I drove from Sacramento to San Francisco (and back) to see this movie premiere--and really glad I did. As a big movie fan and a life-long Northern Californian, I was surprised how many Oscar-winning films have been made in the Bay Area. As a fashion designer who really wants to stay in the Bay Area as opposed to going to LA, George Lucas' comments about persistence, community and having a vision really resonated with me. Hey, if he and all the other filmmakers can make it in SF, so can other artists. Would recommend this film Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a76d00cd8c914ea4b9a0a2d5fb4a4f54", "input": "Review: A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b108d944493042ecbbe29d8578f0988e", "input": "Review: This has to be the worst, and I mean worst biker movie ever made! And that's saying a lot because the line of stinkers is long and smelly!Now at least we know what happened to Ginger after she was rescued from Gilligan's Island! A frightened looking Tina Louise(she was probably afraid someone would see this mess!)is a stranded motorist who is tormented by the most repulsive motorcycle gang in film history. But, don't worry fans! Batman, I mean Adam West as a hick-town doctor comes to the rescue! Pow! Crush! Boom! Holy Toledo Batman! The only good points of this \"bomb\" are some cute women, some laughable fight scenes, and the still \"sexy\" Tina Louise! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08563f362a844a6ebb4bdffe67f0d12a", "input": "Review: I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of \"actual\" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for \"genuineness\" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d75ff52e5fd414a93de9a7945d253e9", "input": "Review: I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82855d64eef14960be952c4b8add990b", "input": "Review: I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9e576c6afb946c58a3775da410c4cc4", "input": "Review: What a perfect example of \"Less Is More...\" Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out \"Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior\" and \"Braveheart\" both starring Mel Gibson. Also \"Gladiator\" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The \"Thirteenth Warrior\" starring Antonio Banderas and \"Blade Runner\" starring Harrison Ford. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3dd723e50ecf4024b8117b8491ae2a43", "input": "Review: I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5c30f3d8bc94c4d9d209f0d378ee8cb", "input": "Review: Any film in the early days of Orson Welles is a triumph all the way to The third Man with Joseph Cotton. He is also wonderful in a Touch Of Evil. Please see them all! He tends to get pompous and self serving in films like F is for Fake, really stupid waste of film.Don't waste your time watching it. it is really ignorant. Orson Welles is a film icon and anyone studying film should see everything he has filmed. All his leading ladies are tremendous but in the end Welles became a fat drunk, like his character in A Touch Of Evil! For some reason Orson Welles had a way with women, I see how he could be considered attractive in his youth, not like Gary Cooper or Joseph Cotton, or Cary Grant,John Wayne, I could go on and on but I digress... and because I am a woman,I can see the attraction to him. He (Orson Welles) is one of the last true film makers and unless you count the film-makers of today: Tarantino, Scorscese, Spike Lee, most of the film makers just don't measure up to the film makers of the Forties! I know there are many more great film makers of today but in such a short amount of time I can't name them all. No Offense to any of the great film makers of this millennium! August 21,2006. Please remind me of some current up and coming film makers, I don't want to be stuck in the past! I love some of the films out now, but rarely are there any that I would put on a \"100 best\" list.. \"Hustle and Flow\" was great, so was \"Fargo\", and \"Oh, Brother, where art thou,\" from a line in Sullivan's travels; another fine film from the forties! Can anyone give me a best list for the 90's and on up to 2006? I would like to know who to watch! Thank you! Also Props to this website! Where else can you plug a film or boo it! i love the ranting and raving from regular folks like me who can say what I want and I promise not to spoil any film for someone who hasn't seen it yet! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d16ac25eb7a412e9c9bd7ed2b5e7f37", "input": "Review: You probably all already know this by now, but 5 additional episodes never aired can be viewed on ABC.com I've watched a lot of television over the years and this is possibly my favorite show, ever. It's a crime that this beautifully written and acted show was canceled. The actors that played Laura, Whit, Carlos, Mae, Damian, Anya and omg, Steven Caseman - are all incredible and so natural in those roles. Even the kids are great. Wonderful show. So sad that it's gone. Of course I wonder about the reasons it was canceled. There is no way I'll let myself believe that Ms. Moynahan's pregnancy had anything to do with it. It was in the perfect time slot in this market. I've watched all the episodes again on ABC.com - I hope they all come out on DVD some day. Thanks for reading. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ceb778b1930147879afd55c96d4b4e70", "input": "Review: I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the \"making of\" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c35992467e37405e9f40488fc9825e8b", "input": "Review: I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.) I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db3cfb207a1143628cdb4de320a6de96", "input": "Review: This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.I thought \"The Walker\" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class? It's sad that \"The Walker\" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c23fd2ed15014b92aa733b40774a284c", "input": "Review: A surprise thriller with more twists and double crosses than a doodle pad. A great cast mixing it up with an intriguing plot overseen by a Twin Peaks-ish influence in director Dahl. Nicholas Cage is a very underrated actor and shows a great portrayal of a man in a bind looking for the right thing to do. J.T. Walsh (RIP to a great actor) is always a wonderful villain, as is Dennis Hopper. It's such a shame he never made to a higher profile in the biz. I'm sure he has his followers, though. In all, this is a great film that shows you that you don't need big bangs or a commercial soundtrack to be an entertaining film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3720dbb36b454e19ae51420130454a7b", "input": "Review: This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring. In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy \"Hasty Hare\"! :-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa1d0d1f65414c9790469644294403dd", "input": "Review: I liked this film very much. The story jumps back and forth quite a bit and is not easy to follow. There is no resolution to the story whatsoever, and you are left to wonder what really happened. Since I like that sort of film I enjoyed this. I especially like the \"dating\" scenes between the boys and I was drawn into their lives. And of course any film with a naked Staphane Rideau will get a couple of extra points. ;-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1bdea823f9264f209bd904cd2961f8e2", "input": "Review: We fans of Ed Wood tend to be an obsessive bunch in the first place, but this movie in particular has driven me to a level of fan-dom that I have never before approached! One of the most intense thrills of non-mainstream movie adulation - at least as far as I am concerned - is the pleasure of unearthing the obscure. I remember how, as a teenager, I longed to see Eddie's \"Revenge of the Dead\" (a.k.a. \"Night of the Ghouls\"), which at that time had been vaulted for a couple of decades. Likewise such arcane masterpieces of low budget filmmaking as Doris Wishman's \"A Night to Dismember\" or half the works of Jesus Franco! However, recent years have seen video and DVD rendering these once unfindable treasures almost TOO accessible - even for those of us on the 'wrong' (!) side of the Atlantic....And then, behold, there was \"I Woke Up Early the Day I Died\" - a movie that SHOULD have been so 'big', yet which disappeared into the ether even before Fangoria printed the first fairly lengthy article on it that first whetted my appetite. The 1990s NEEDED a hard-to-find movie though which would REALLY be worth hunting out: and this, to be sure is it.... I don't especially wish to add too much of a commentary on all those marvellous aspects of the film - its classy-yet-kitsch cast, its haunting yet often hallucinogenic visuals, its wondrous moments of \"pure cinema\" (in the sense of the 1920s French cineastes) and surrealism, or even its resoundingly memorable soundtrack - since this has all been described most eloquently by other users here.What I DO wish to mention, briefly, is the pleasure that I have received also from hunting down certain obscure artefacts relating to this almost-lost-to-us-but-thankfully-not-quite movie! I think the German video, which I picked up while in Cologne on a cold crisp winter's day, is fairly well-known to Ed Wood's followers now. It is also quite common knowledge that a promotional poster for the film was released. However, there is thankfully more to be found!!! Firstly, there are a number of reviews available from the film's German THEATRICAL release - I have used several of these in my translation classes in an attempt to \"Woodify\" my students..... some of these reviews are positive eulogies to the film's artistry and entertainment value - and most interesting of all is that most critics placed it squarely within both the American trash AND European arthouse traditions. Secondly, there is the score by Larry Groupe', which can be acquired from the man himself - many of the tracks exert a truly emotional pull on the listener, particularly if you are contemplating the film's currently \"vaulted\" status and growing a little melancholy at the same time. Finally - for now - I wish to mention the promo SOUNDTRACK that Cinequanon put out in extremely limited numbers. BEG, BORROW, STEAL, KILL or do whatever it takes if you get the chance to acquire one of these!!!!!! It features 14 tracks from the film, including Eartha Kitt's ballad, the late Darcy Clay's \"Jesus I Was Evil\" (two versions of which are also available on CD from New Zealand, although that is another story again!), the cool radio music to which Christina Ricci dances, and also those amazing techno drops by Minty and ZHV (the latter being Billy Z's very own techno band).....Become obsessed - let Ed Wood rule your life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec8d98872cd74284ad34030dc30c5056", "input": "Review: I just saw \"Behind Bedroom Doors,\" and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, \"Oh...I'm...not that way.\" Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motionFirst, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:\"Tell me about Gabe.\" \"What do you want to know?\" \"Is Gabe happily married?\" \"I'm married.\" \"There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl.\" \"Yes.\" \"She's not a bad girl?\" \"No.\" \"Does that door have a lock on it?\"You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who \"experimented\" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. \"It's only business,\" Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.To wrap up, \"Behind Bedroom Doors\" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af097eab570442a6b4c27c978f5da49e", "input": "Review: Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6050802010994d2c8655eb8d932c883e", "input": "Review: If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then \"House of Games\" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.\"House of Games\" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).\"House of Games\" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d5323202d84493f82bb401eb6df5de3", "input": "Review: Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e0fa40b71de4b82afd761e7815f562f", "input": "Review: I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did \"Revenge of the Nerds\" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after \"Return of the Jedi\" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a \"Nerd\" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dee6c322d92944d5a3ca06401a54ee96", "input": "Review: Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-642d38eecba74d109f1facd93029a91e", "input": "Review: How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than \"Mafia\" did for the criminal underground. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c5528e50870462b829b770c8481c108", "input": "Review: This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects. 'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec57107146284ffbaa5ebed5549908c2", "input": "Review: Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of \"innocence\" and/or \"beauty\". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The \"story\" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a4871f0b24f49e685a2d0c3c8d3bffc", "input": "Review: I saw this movie by luck, just because I was going through a phase where I had a new found admiration for Bill Pullman and wanted to see all of his recent movies and thank God I did! This Movie has stuck with me ever since and remain one of my favorites! The story revolves around two girls who embark on a dramatic journey in a foreign country where they'll learn the true meaning of freedom.Alice and Darlene were just trying to spend a vacation together before going to college but their trip ended up a much more complicated story. The struggle they go through as they are arrested in Thailand and became prisoners is very moving and intense. The acting is amazing, the images extraordinary, the soundtrack is fantastic and so right for the movie and the message transmitted definitely powerful. I actually can't even find the right words to describe how this movie makes me feel every time I watch it. I know some people haven't appreciated as much as me by the rating the movie has but I swear, this one, you have to see!!! I promise it will stick with you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-31c1c23a764a447fa20fded5b6dcec60", "input": "Review: This is not \"so bad that it is good,\" it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e46d78fd828549a2a4fb33534733474b", "input": "Review: This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2365510378a34af68b9785606e56a7e3", "input": "Review: Red Skelton was still another major star who made the transition from movies to television with ease.His shows certainly brought a laughter to the American households of years back.He would begin the show with an opening monologue. Afterwards, we would have a variety of characters. Remember Gertrude and Heathcliff in the monologue? How can we ever forget San Fernando Red? I remember one episode where as a king Red introduced his queen by referring to her as your fatness.Go know that Red would use his comedic talents to really hide from his tragic life. He lost a son to leukemia at age 11 or so. His wife, Georgia, died by suicide. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b394d89760aa4ebfb2b2b8b31c45f9a7", "input": "Review: VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as \"old wine in a new bottle\" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately: * When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-146cab1368ca4b73b0b35dbaf61e0515", "input": "Review: No, I've never seen any of the \"Santa Slasher\" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh \"killer\" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long – even at only 92 minutes, crap.Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the \"Leg Lamp\" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap – as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish \"who's naughty,\" it's as graphic as a \"Garbage Pail Kid\" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is…uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other \"Santa-Slashers\" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c93a12073b3b4f48b0bb855116d57dc7", "input": "Review: I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis \"Altaira Morbius.\")Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen (\"Dr. John J. Adams\"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where \"elites\" think is so \"heavy\" and \"thought-provoking.\" That's nonsense. It only appeared \"intelligent\" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fa2e2242e1246d5b2d9164ba1d28213", "input": "Review: This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09d1ec0a00214dbaa896b0559fb9f8b6", "input": "Review: The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-35d1cf90f64848b59a5b7d3e0720d299", "input": "Review: I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-feeac33ed2ff4249ab4acbccfdcd3545", "input": "Review: A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. \"My name's Shocky,\" says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc934c5946b54e918caf01b2c73b3f20", "input": "Review: SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana KimmellFifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like \"the killer will turn us into coleslaw.\" Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76b57678556240f6a5d0a8ced8487ffc", "input": "Review: Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17c4c40246bc4a4bac5e63583bf04e29", "input": "Review: I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by \"gems\", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. \"WHAT STRENGTH!\" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.And Mr. Chicken PWNZ. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-361687ca3b67457286899a869025371b", "input": "Review: Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...A red toolbox of death? Please....Hypothermic weak thugs...Acting from hell...Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-( Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5527d62f5ad45609233129d45afd83b", "input": "Review: SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e796ad77b1434e2e9a1b684f7033ec74", "input": "Review: Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. I even regret renting the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c6e7a17c9934271b8b66b79b5cc261f", "input": "Review: One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e7e84556ebb41979df0909b44f2667f", "input": "Review: May contain spoilers.I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6bc60369cd6f46a59b5ee05e691deab0", "input": "Review: As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d87f4f75d7f467eae7a9051a59d03b0", "input": "Review: Fully deserving its prestigious Hollywood award nomination, this is an entertaining little gem with lots of pizazz and some delightful surprises. Outstandingly funny scenes include an hilarious shoot (and re-shoot) of a WW1 trench scene with Australian comedian Clyde Cook as an optimistic non-com and the hapless McDoakes as a Boyer/Colman messenger — all under the beady eye of Ralph Sanford's delightfully irascible Anguish; a lost McDoakes guided and re-guided by equally perplexed Jack Carson; assistant director Chandler rejoicing in a McDoakes-sent opportunity: \"I'm going to be a director!\" Ace comic O'Hanlon has a dual role, playing both McDoakes and himself playing McDoakes! Oddly, Richard L. Bare who does play himself in one or more other entries in the series, has turned down that opportunity here. In real life, Bare's a youngish, six-foot Rock Hudson lookalike, but here he's impersonated by veteran actor (over 500 movies!), Jack Mower. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3312827693fc4016ae810298576cc582", "input": "Review: It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious \"thing\" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the \"what the hell?\" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.I'm in the latter group. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6c42dcff4b84d07bbe730fe5f68ea84", "input": "Review: I know that there are some purists out there who poo poo anything that is not exactly like the original, however sometimes spin-offs can stand on their own merits. I like the new Iron Chef because it is similar enough to the Japanese version but at the same time caters to American spirit. I love Alton Brown as commentator, because he explains things with flair. The Iron Chefs themselves are very interesting. I know the originals were probably the best chefs on the planet at the time, but Bobby Flay is the only American Iron Chef to beat them. Mario Batali seems to have the most fun when cooking, making comments and being flashy while creating. I have watched the series and find all the players work together well. The judges are not always the best choices, however. There are a few exceptions, like the lawyer turned foodie, but most of the judges are questionable in being able to handle what is served. I enjoy watching the chefs hustle and the challengers are surprising. The food at the end always looks amazing and sometimes it inspires me in the kitchen. Perhaps that is all anyone can ask, to want to really eat what is served. The only thing I would really change about the series is to ask folks on the show to lighten up a little. Sometimes the mood becomes a bit too tense, and that isn't always fun to watch when you are expecting more amusement. I liked the version with William Shatner (Iron Chef USA) because it was so over-the-top like the original, but I can tell it was a pretty expensive proposition. I wish he had stayed with this version and been the host - between Bill Shatner and Alton Brown, that would have me grinning for an hour. As long as you don't expect the original Japanese version and can accept this series on its own merits, you may find it to be an enjoyable hour. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-926946df148f4a2aae01d34e5689bc03", "input": "Review: Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties. How could that happen? What drove me into addiction? OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce. Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in \"Love Actually\", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is. Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing \"All Over The World\", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage. It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there. Got Still Crazy... anyone? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1dcbe0160376486f9dbf9b6727c2ab31", "input": "Review: Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a \"religious picture.\" Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a \"message picture.\" It flopped everywhere.Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47e7a6d880b442dcaa9687286a8f1ced", "input": "Review: Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.2/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94a06cc9d0df4e5aa87f3576e2876ce1", "input": "Review: This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c57e249e5a32460980b9eb718706d151", "input": "Review: This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ae02514e7944bdf9d178d7ce9b53fe6", "input": "Review: If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in \"Three Days to Vegas\", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out \"The Crew\". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d40f78c49af4396a15cbe093ab63d03", "input": "Review: Thomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to sit through. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d97cae942226421a81eda16540cf3f9a", "input": "Review: Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a22f567888404808a735fc81ce0496be", "input": "Review: Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93a4d61246424098830f1ceaffaf18fa", "input": "Review: So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that \"MST3K\" mocks them (\"Why Study Industrial Arts?\" comes to mind). \"Hemo the Magnificent\" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).Since \"Hemo the Magnificent\" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in \"Gremlins\": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3aab652183584411a6703bf60e13ce04", "input": "Review: Ah, the best and funniest movie about female football fans, only slightly better than the 1982 saga of teenage delusion set in North London (qv). By the way, I just watched this on Film 4 [2008-12-21] and am ruing my inability to set the PVR).This is easily my second favourite football movie after \"Mike Bassett: England Manager\", but this time with the added twist of looking like a guerrilla piece of movie-making from a team who apparently keep making movies which are banned in the country in which they are made (just think about the bit where the girls are taken from the stadium just as the Sun is setting: fast reactions all round). It is rare for a movie to make me laugh out loud, but when the rural soldier escorted one of the girls into the lavvies while forcing her to wear an inpromptu mask made from a poster of Ali Daei, I couldn't stop waking the others in the house with my snorts, especially when the young soldier misunderstood the grandfather's calls for assistance... Speaking of the toilets, I just wish I could speak Farsi so that I could work out the writing on the toilet walls (yes, there were a few scribblings in Roman script, but they mostly referred to wanky American rock bands).Also, on the rural-and-Farsi theme, don't you reckon that Omid Djalili sounds like a yokel when he talks Farsi? Listen to the custody sergeant in this movie and then go \"Yup.\"I'm not going to bore on about the sexual politics of Iran, and I'm not going to bore on about the dubious acting; my love for this movie comes from the script and the editing: top notch stuff.Here's a list of my top favourite football movies: 1. Mike Bassett, England Manager 2. Offside 3. Those Glory Glory Days 4. A Shot at Glory 5. The Arsenal Stadium Mystery Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7a27960ecd54fff9dec0d94f1b8b98b", "input": "Review: The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the \"I am not amused\" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a8cf8e6cd044d64937eccc44ce65bb5", "input": "Review: Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-623a1381ace34f7fa9f5c87e50025acb", "input": "Review: Finally got to see this classic TV movie on an unofficial disc recorded from an old VHS, it is a classic piece of horror. Its a pity more of this neglected corner of horror in terms of official releases on DVD and VHS ... the TV horror movie. Recommended for all fans of the 70's TV movie much like trilogy of terror. Those interested should get the book on the subject by David Deal - Television Fright Films of the 70's. Email me for a chance to see it.....its fabulous to see it again.It does have it problems like many TV movies they have to be rather inventive in the effects dept and even at 70 mins it can seem to drag possibly we are all used to more modern editing but still great stuff and far better than many theatrical frights released today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec5925d920784c8dbb320e50f05824b6", "input": "Review: What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike \"Ray\" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4dafa477c704206b02c38ebf0c69d10", "input": "Review: Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on \"...of the living dead\" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch. We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together. Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined \"Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film.\" Jordan replied, \"No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result.\" Oh.)A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit. Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation! Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises. Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan. Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d833724e47049b09a85c5469f8b33cc", "input": "Review: OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.It began off alright, and we thought \"Ok this might actually be OK\". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.It began when the \"mysterious paint baller\" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like \"The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ\" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3554ecaeed7e4e11a3f44f5d3e8ded4d", "input": "Review: \"Giant\" is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see \"Hud\" (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or \"The Last Picture Show.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2dd64e37c19d4653a42298748dd7f008", "input": "Review: You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' \"A Christmas Carol\" with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, \"I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?\", we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, \"it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child\" he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54f61a02ca9c4ac5a448ea2b6fc1badf", "input": "Review: We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55ebc458fad9401787d700e9bd9c563d", "input": "Review: I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was \"he deserves it, for making such a bad movie\". Don't waste your time or money on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd95c3565013450da16675e66b1e64b8", "input": "Review: From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity \"over with.\" Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d503cb3f134c19adef3f572a50faec", "input": "Review: I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been \"The Vanishing Bride\" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-542da902f21d4f41946ce41e25f6192e", "input": "Review: I was also on hand for the premiere in Toronto. This film was sort of a consolation when I thought I wouldn't be able to get in to see my first choice. Well, I was totally blown away. By the time I got to the theater I could remember little other than the basic plot of the movie (yes, I actually forgot who was even in it.) Terrific performances from the entire cast. Carrie-Anne Moss was great in a true departure from her days as Trinity. As for Billy Connolly, I think not since Chaplin has an actor played so brilliantly with no lines what-so-ever. The kids were also great. Definitely check this one out if you get the chance.And, by the way, I got to see my first choice anyway- and this was way better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6a427fed9fc467888830e60cad12893", "input": "Review: This movie was messed up. A sequel to \"John Carpenter's Vampires\", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first \"Vampires\", it's a good movie. \"Vampires: Los Muetos\" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbfbdaaa567f49e2ad07b01b484f6015", "input": "Review: This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the \"Night Gallery\" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f720af6b83a4fdeb232a1b8cdb688ca", "input": "Review: When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be \"Paths of Glory\" with American uniforms. Except that \"Paths of Glory\" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from \"Gettysburg\" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from \"The Thin Red Line\". But in \"The Thin Red Line\" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c2037a80f51486b89ca647e38ff184d", "input": "Review: I thought it was a very funny movie. I love dog movies and comedy movies so combined they were twice as good. K-9, k-911, and k-9 PI are my favorite movies. Jim Belushi is hysterical and Jerry Lee is hilarious and adorable they make a great team. The only downside is that i really didn't understand how Dooley's wife died. She died before this movie but how? If they said it i must have missed it. Other than that I give it two thumbs/tails up! Those dogs (Jerry Lee and Zeus) must have had A lot of training. They were so funny and all the noises Jerry Lee would make when Dooley was talking to him was so funny. my favorite was when Jerry Lee sang and when he would bite peoples privates to get information very very funny lol Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6635d579cc4449a93154b576a98b0fe", "input": "Review: Wonderland is the fascinating film chronicling the x-rated film star John C. Holmes involvement in the brutal Wonderland murders.The movie's promotion misleads one into thinking this a romanticized portrayal of the porn industry in the vein of Boogie Nights and that is not the case here.In fact,except for a few references made by newscasters that John Holmes is a porn star and a brief montage of real-life footage of John Holmes this film is strictly drama about a fallen celebrity's involvement with murder and how it happened.Despite being mislead the film is actually engaging.The acting from all the cast is excellent and I'd like to say that Val Kilmer is amazing in his ability to get down all the mannerisms of John Holmes.I was completely convinced that I was watching what John C. Holmes probably looked and acted like in real life.If you are a John C. Holmes fan or like stories about Hollywood then I think you will enjoy watching Wonderland. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-70ecc5f2cf59484183277c980357c611", "input": "Review: It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8\" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War! Never before has \"a nice game of chess\" seemed the better option.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cffb691d35454710b18beac88bd3628f", "input": "Review: The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3992a8a0b1994dd681f4973ea0357d06", "input": "Review: No rubbish - no where even near rubbish. Not an original? thats the last thing that could be said of \"2.4 children\".Predictable? certainly not! Although it was somewhat an unusual series for the BBC, it was hilarious, funny, and witty. I particularly liked Belinda Lang and John Pickard - who I believe preformed wonderfully.Gary olsen was also very good and so were all the other cast members..I never quite new why it was can-celled till reading here today about Gary Olsen's death at a relatively young age. I do wish that they would make more of comedy of this type, much more of them (and show them here in Israel).Thumbs way up! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-edd8032c2cb8408f995e00d053215d5a", "input": "Review: Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become \"Alias Smith and Jones\". Mr. Wayne becomes \"John Jones\". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be \"Rev. Smith\", but Wayne calls him \"Dr. Smith\". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in \"Our Gang\", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3051e61965fb40b499903a8e9ae8b001", "input": "Review: This is one of the best of the genre. I saw it twice about 25yrs ago and have not had another opportunity to see it again since then. It rivals the Zatoichi series (also starring Katsu) in exciting swordplay. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3e20044eee243cab9e2ae4021f8f57e", "input": "Review: My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e20558f337134ae1bb1420ea5749e5b8", "input": "Review: Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73dbb302ce584b61aee39249da11853a", "input": "Review: Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - \"Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven.\" As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a0a258dd9174885bfffa2f713824642", "input": "Review: A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66b58b0997534140bf0220ab338227ed", "input": "Review: I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched \"Garam Masala\". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that \"air hostesses\" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play \"Boeing Boeing.\" The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f982005fbcac4de5a47de4069d0e4a19", "input": "Review: This movie was directed by Victor Nunez who also wrote the screenplay (Ulee's Gold). Nice and straightforward writing, that was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award, looking at Ruby's day to day life. What we see is a slice in the life of the young woman Ruby. Ashley Judd (Sisters) won the Independent Spirit Award Best Female Lead for this role. Ruby is starting to live on her own and establishing her own identity. She explores jobs, friendships, boy friends, sex, a typical young adult search. The movie won Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. As an independent film enthusiast I picked the movie because of Sundance. I appreciate this type of movie, because it does not carry the Hollywood baggage.Although the stories are completely different this reminded me of Nobody's Fool, staring Paul Newman. The later movie is a slice of the daily life of a common man. I like that. The story is very nicely told, and all we had to do was sit and enjoy the story. The only thing I am not sure about is the title. I am sure that there are not that many bugs, and flies in paradise as there are in Florida. As I am allergic to mosquitos, Florida is no paradise to me, I itch all over thinking about Florida. I turn into a complete red boil. I recommend this movie! Favorite scenes: Ruby and her friend Rochelle Bridges, played by Allison Dean walking at the beach of Panama City, Florida. Indeed the sand is very white. I have been there. Favorite Quotes: \"Necessity has always been a good excuse.\" \"All that fuss over finding a man is not at all different now, who is going to be and when and why.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22a2fa8235204843acdaaf0ee33e650e", "input": "Review: Tears of Kali is an original yet flawed horror film that delves into the doings of a cult group in India comprised of German psychologists who have learned how to control their wills and their bodies to the point that they can cause others to be \"healed\" through radical techniques (that can trigger nightmarish hallucinations and physical pain and torture) to release the pent-up demons inside them.The film is shown as a series of vignettes about the Taylor-Eriksson group--the above-mentioned cult group. The first segment is somewhat slower than the rest but serves fine to set up the premise for the rest of the film. The rest of it plays out like a mindf@ck film with some of the key staples thrown in the mix (full-frontal nudity, some gore) to keep you happy.I say check this out. May not be spectacular, but it's concept is pretty neato and it delivers in the right spots. 8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11f4a1e7005544fa94c0fefcd4046a31", "input": "Review: This is an absurdist dark comedy from Belgium. Shot perfectly in crisp black and white, Benoît Poelvoorde (Man Bites Dog) is on fine form as Roger, the angry, obsessive father of a family in a small, sullen Belgian mining town. Roger is a photographer who, along with his young daughter Luise, visits road accidents to take photos. He is also obsessed with winning a car by entering a competition where the contestant has to break a record - and he decides that his son, Michel, must attempt to break the record of perpetually walking through a door - he even hires an overweight coach to train him. Michel dresses as Elvis and has a spot on a radio show called 'Cinema Lies', where he describes mistakes in films. Luise is friendly with near neighbour Felix, a pigeon fancier. Roger is a callous figure as he pushes Michel right over the limit during the record attempt, which almost results in his death. Interspersed throughout the film are Magritte-like surreal images. It's undeniably charming and well worth your time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58efb4bf435740d88876d2bb8e956596", "input": "Review: This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching \"28 Days later\" and \"Magnolia\". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the \"F\" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3166e307fe5d4e92a6fe7cd10bbd1e92", "input": "Review: Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local \"protection\" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with \"mystery helpers\" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c21656dd10644d39d30b246696a9215", "input": "Review: Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b065425dadb44432af6a1615c5f32f5f", "input": "Review: Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of \"innocence\" and/or \"beauty\". So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The \"story\" comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fdb16572be74ef4a221b76a244f9f69", "input": "Review: I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ed49e766e734fe39f289b6a2f839b01", "input": "Review: I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say \"Hey my watch has stopped\"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e7dc0b1fc48467ba5031773540c6401", "input": "Review: One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon \"Amazing Grace\" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss (\"But it's one a.m.\" \"I don't care, get him on the line\") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why \"Amazing Grace\" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, \"I never told you this, but I'm proud of you.\" Cue hug. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0694ff584234d1daa9a77b073d32b03", "input": "Review: I was never a big fan of television until I watched 24 for the first time. I got into the series very late. Season 5 ended before I even saw my very first episode. It was an episode of Series 3 that was on my parents DVR (digital video recorder) box while I was house sitting for the weekend. It took that one episode for me to be hook line and sinker into the world of Jack Bauer. And boy was I hooked!! I watched the next six episodes without blinking an eye. The next day I went to Blockbuster and signed up for an unlimited month pass for twenty something dollars and needless to say it has been the greatest blockbuster money I've ever spent. I watched the first three seasons in three weeks. That's 72 forty minute episodes!!! I will say that finding out what happens next is easier on DVD than waiting an entire week. I can only imagine the anticipation of watching Season 6 week to week!! I find it mildly torturous and cruel but I'm going to give it a try and watch it just like the rest of America!! The DVR is set and you can bet I'll be chomping at the bit!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19aa09677a2c4534be7a74d431885532", "input": "Review: WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERSA couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it – I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels – Dream Warriors in particular – weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out \"we know this is garbage – but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?\" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few \"haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr – har – har – hars\" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written \"you're f**ked\". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds \"well the map says we're f**ked\". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin – a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. \"Nice hearing from you, Carlos\", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with \"shut the f**k up, man\" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aad3c9acfe7e45de8bbcf5550be15f6f", "input": "Review: This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is \"Tom Brown\" and his main rival, \"Bob\" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44f8080a61354c838d2fafefac5eec9d", "input": "Review: Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d22d560ad3d4dadbd85039393c09db7", "input": "Review: I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0cb1f569a034222a4479466111cad17", "input": "Review: Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-622c7e9132784859b760e1e463f38fd5", "input": "Review: Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c08a82a73cca4921b4ad9bc6c6912618", "input": "Review: Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the \"legend\" up with substance.The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses (\"Nature Documentary\" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2c688a2797a4242af08ba97649f0194", "input": "Review: At first glance, it would seem natural to compare Where the Sidewalk Ends with Laura. Both have noirish qualities, both were directed by Otto Preminger, and both star Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. But that's where most of the comparisons end. Laura dealt with posh, sophisticated people with means who just happen to find themselves mixed-up in a murder. Where the Sidewalk Ends is set in a completely different strata. These are people with barely two nickels to rub together who are more accustomed to seeing the underbelly of society than going to fancy dress parties. Where the Sidewalk ends is a gritty film filled with desperate people who solve their problems with their fists or some other weapon. Small-time hoods are a dime-a-dozen and cops routinely beat confessions out of the crooks. Getting caught-up in a murder investigation seems as natural as breathing.While I haven't seen his entire body of work, based on what I have seen, Dana Andrews gives one of his best performances as the beat-down cop, Det. Sgt. Mark Dixon. He's the kind of cop who is used to roughing up the local hoods if it gets him information or a confession. One night, he goes too far and accidentally kills a man. He does his best to cover it up. But things get complicated when he falls for the dead man's wife, Morgan Taylor (Tierney), whose father becomes suspect number one in the murder case. As Morgan's father means the world to her, Dixon's got to do what he can to clear the old man without implicating himself.Technically, Where the Sidewalk Ends is outstanding. Besides the terrific performance from Andrews, the movie features the always delightful Tierney. She has a quality that can make even the bleakest of moments seem brighter. The rest of the cast is just as solid with Tom Tully as the wrongly accused father being a real standout. Beyond the acting, the direction, sets, lighting, and cinematography are all top-notch. Overall, it's an amazingly well made film.If I have one complaint (and admittedly it's a very, very minor quibble) it's that Tierney is almost too perfect for the role and her surroundings. It's a little difficult to believe that a woman like that could find herself mixed-up with some of these unsavory characters. It's not really her fault, it's just the way Tierney comes across. She seems a little too beautiful, polished, and delicate for the part. But, her gentle, kind, trusting nature add a sense of needed realism to her portrayal. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a810e3cd6c9846faa9113aebdc84c0d3", "input": "Review: If my expectations weren't exceeded, they were certainly met. \"Nancy Drew\" works both as a mystery and a comedy. It pays homage to the books it was based on and spoofs them at the same time. The movie starts with a close-up on a book shelf and an animated credit sequence resembling illustrations from the books. It then begins lampooning the books immediately. Writer/director Andrew Fleming seems to realize the idea of a teenage girl regularly breaking up crime rings in a small town is ridiculous, so he doesn't treat the idea religiously. He pokes fun at Nancy Drew's ability to do anything, such as ace every class in school, know which baked treat is perfect for converting any enemy to her side, make a bird house with twelve flying buttresses, and even perform an emergency tracheotomy at a party. Nancy'd always be in perfect style, if she were living in the wholesome 1950's instead of present day L.A. And she carries around a \"sleuth kit\" complete with fingerprinting dust, flashlight, compass, and magnifying glass. Preposterous, of course, but I seem to remember the Hardy Boys' access at any given moment to CSI equipment being a little too convenient as well. And if the perky pipsqueak private eye is a little younger than her literary counterpart, it's just more comedic exaggeration on the movie's part.The mystery of the movie is handled more seriously. Nancy and her lawyer father move from their small town to Los Angeles, where Nancy digs into a cold case involving the murder of a Hollywood movie star who lived in her new house decades ago. Nancy searches for clues in some pretty practical ways, such as surfing websites like Google and this one and watching old videotapes of the victim's movies. When she does something more out of the ordinary, you have to admire the girl's resourcefulness. Emma Roberts, an undeniably cute kid, plays the pint-sized amateur sleuth beautifully. She makes the too-perfect girl completely lovable, if not completely realistic. Tate Donovan is also great as the too-perfect girl's father, Carson Drew. He's an ideal father figure without being unrealistically perfect, and he shows reasonable concern for his daughter as she gets into danger. Less likable is Max Thierot's take on Ned Nickerson, Nancy's boyfriend. I much preferred George O'Hanlon Jr.'s portrayal in the 1970's TV series starring Pamela Sue Martin as Nancy Drew, in which Ned was a gawky, awkward kid with a little crush on Nancy. The character of Corky (Josh Flitty), a twelve-year old with a crush on Nancy, is much less annoying than Max Thierot's Ned. Amy Bruckner and Kay Panabaker seem appropriately cast as Nancy's gal pals Bess and George, but they only make brief cameos at the beginning of the film.Speaking of cameos, Chris Kattan (SNL), Eddie Jemison (\"Ocean's 13\"), and Bruce Willis all make surprise guest appearances, which just proves you never can guess which movie Bruce Willis will pop up in next.The movie does fail to live up to some potential. It's mentioned early on that the Drews' new house is heavily booby-trapped, but Nancy and her father are done with tripping over booby traps a few minutes after that. Also, Nancy describes the cold case she's about to investigate as a murder taking place at an extravagant party, which should yield plenty of potential murderers, but she only encounter a handful of suspects. And while there's some moments of real suspense during Nancy's adventures, the solution to the case comes out of nowhere, and in the end all possible plot threads are tied up too conveniently and who-cares-who-done-it. Ralph Sall's score adds to the movie's suspense, but the contemporary teenybopper songs woven into the soundtrack are lame. Still, I really enjoyed this film, and while the movie is aimed primarily at tween girls, people of any age and gender can enjoy it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be9aa963a2754129962446cdd5ebe03b", "input": "Review: this movie is just great. if you have a chance to see it, then you should run to see it. even though the movie has almost nothing to do with its original from 1932, Pacino does a great job playing as Tony Montana to get around. Pacino has this way about him where he can say anything in anyway and make it sound just great. if you thought that Pulp Fiction was good with the swear words (if you saw it) then you should also see Scarface to see another angle at how an actor can say them. (its quite sweet) even though the movie is has a lot of action and the plot moves very fast through time, not keeping the realtime aspect ratio correct, it is still easy to follow along, but you must keep your eyes peeled at all times to not lose anything. personally, i have found that watching this movie makes three hours seem like a breeze, it is really just that great. this movie is one of thoe movies that is acted and directed so well that not only do you forget that this movie was made in the crappy 80s but that it makes you actually root for the bad guy... \"So say good night to the BAD guy\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8977b9a763f4a86b0d4bca1b700333e", "input": "Review: I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a12c8cbcf91349d0af45c3d045b35f96", "input": "Review: Oh dear, what a horrid movie.The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from \"the Natural\", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. A really bad film, a really bad film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50832b1aa7cd44ce9d84fb1de3fa8447", "input": "Review: This is a film that was very well done. I had heard mixed reviews while it was in production and have been waiting for its release! Cheers to the director and all the actors. The supporting cast gave Eva Mendez what she needed to take this to the top. As everyone else here states, the latter portion of the film is riveting. Katie Cassidy did an amazing job with her character, being she had not done a lot of work when this film was made. She has quite the career ahead of her. I was amazed at her performance. I completely enjoyed the film, questioned my values in life and priorities, and am a better person for it! A great message lies within the film. Release it so all can enjoy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecbf6227772e4fecbdc5413efeb7d321", "input": "Review: Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ae09ca055f7473aa2ca8d029889be65", "input": "Review: Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1288a95287c14546955277b35fde8eb2", "input": "Review: This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-( Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-172d58cf4ec044cb9bbf193b818f5cd6", "input": "Review: I have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived \"twist\" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-403e3b2bf610459489809d2b7af876cf", "input": "Review: I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure \"The Incredible Melting Man\" would be a lot of fun.It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:\"I'll find him with a geiger counter.\" \"Is he radioactive?\" \"Just a little bit.\" Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. \"Oh god - it's his ear!\" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01f5b5a025764730bd68f495a566a6b4", "input": "Review: Never see this movie.It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-634504edb19d47d8a0e43967cc6c2833", "input": "Review: What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit. Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd3eaa3992934057b00e35fcc6ab5a44", "input": "Review: Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0056c1507dd4cc48138e8b87e217d2f", "input": "Review: I wouldn't be surprised if Soderbergh was pressured to avoid making pre- revolution Cuba as graphically corrupt as it was. Merely reciting a few statistics isn't going to make it with the younger crowd. Still, part one, which is almost entirely shot in the jungle, does capture the feel of that place, especially when traversing the mountainous areas of Cuba. I liked Del Toro's interpretation of Che Guevara's personality. And the actor who plays Castro, Bichir, also did a great job, against all odds. It's clear Soderbergh doesn't look down on these people, but it's also clear he's not going to plea their case to 'yanquis' far removed from the recent past. Some of the more important historical aspects contradict what I've read. To my knowledge Castro did not court the Soviet Union until all attempts to gain acceptance from the United States were exhausted. But on other aspects he is right on, especially as to the looting by the expatriates as the island went other rebel control. The country's treasury was left empty. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d115e265547b4f39a30031993f54ae27", "input": "Review: When I first saw this film in the 1980's, I was in my middle teenage years and somewhat reluctant to see this since I considered myself grown up and out of the \"Sesame Street/Muppets\" age. I honestly don't remember if I liked it at the time or not. However, somewhere in college I watched this film again, and it wound up going (and staying) into my personal Best Films Ever collection.This film is LOADED with humor that goes far above and beyond what one would have expected from the Muppets. I mean, obviously the Muppets always have appealed to adults and children because there's humor geared towards both generations. But come on...Janice is accidentally overheard telling someone \"I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it IS artistic\"...there's a joke from a father to a son that if the son in love with Kermit the Frog then the father doesn't want to hear it...Gonzo saves a chicken with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (sp?) and afterwards says \"I think we're engaged now\"...these and plenty of other moments in the film had me rolling. Add to that very smart dialogue, very smart New York/Broadway \"wink wink\" humor, the usual large amount of celebrity cameos and some really enjoyable songs that don't border on \"kid-level cheesy\" whatsoever...this film is a masterpiece! I don't throw \"10\"'s out on a regular basis...but this one deserves it. Over 20 years later, this film totally holds up, perhaps even more so. The Muppets never were and never will be again, as funny and smart and just plain brilliant as this film was and is. ---Q Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2952282d58f54cb39d386b41f595106e", "input": "Review: This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: \"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.\" So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1613c6ed3f8341f1a29e2bbb5ede1269", "input": "Review: I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f97ae40501624badb3b091558b0b1763", "input": "Review: basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in \"Basic Instinct\".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit \"Basic Instinct\" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.this movie \"The Fourth Man\" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named \"Reve\"(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named \"Christine\", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!especially, i like the character \"Reve\" which is brilliantly played by \"Krabbe\".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.i rate this movie: 10 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb88daf0b1bf4d71bafc71850a5acc39", "input": "Review: Loosely intended as a satire of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance, The Three Ages was Buster Keaton's first attempt at a full length comedy feature. The only similarities to Intolerance are the opening \"book\" scene and the fact that similar stories through the ages are edited together into a complete film. Keaton's reasoning for appropriating this style was that if it didn't succeed as a feature film, it could be reduced to three two-reelers. Fortunately, The Three Ages succeeds brilliantly as a comedy and contains some of the funniest routines I've seen in any of Keaton's film. There is nothing unique or daring about the story lines. They are simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plots, but the period satires are riotous and set the standard for future works by Mel Brooks and all films of this genre. However, I don't believe that anyone has ever topped this comedy. No one can play the lovable goof like Keaton and the stunts in this film are some of his best. In addition, Wallace Beery's appearance as Keaton's rival adds to this film's appeal. Anyone who thinks that comedy from the 1920's cannot be appreciated by modern audiences needs to see this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-642832f1472340509a8737db65c6eb4b", "input": "Review: 1.) This movie was amazing! I watched it while I was in the town next to the one where he grew up! I went and saw the buildings that the story took place in. Overall, I loved this movie, One of Jake Gyllenhaal's best!! Also- my favorite parts were the science fair, and all the times with his father. They were so sad, it seemed. Homer wanted to follow his dream and his dad didn't seem to care one way or another. That tag line is true. \"Sometimes One Dream is bright enough to light up the sky.\" 2.) The way this movie was shot was impeccable, it was all so believable that it could have been recorded during the 1950's. Dress was accurate and they had their slang down too. Definitely recommend this movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5f4a9236ace415ea6615f3e0f6d2460", "input": "Review: Some years ago, satellite channel U.K. Gold promoted repeats of 'Men Behaving Badly' with the hype: \"Here it is, the original flat-sharing sitcom!\". This was in fact untrue. 'Man About The House' was also a flat-sharing sitcom and ran from 1973-76.It was the brainchild of Johnnie Mortimer and Brian Cooke, creators of the popular sitcom 'Father Dear Father'. When it ended, they decided they wanted to do something more in harmony with the times. In the first episode, Chrissy ( Paula Wilcox ) and Jo ( Sally Thomsett ) are tidying their Myddleton Terrace flat following a wild party when they find a man in their bath. He is Robin Tripp ( Richard O'Sullivan ), a Southampton cookery student of no fixed abode. While his clothes dry out, he puts on a ladies' dressing gown and prepares them a meal. They are so impressed by his culinary skills that they invite him to stay. But there must be no naughty business. So Robin has to pretend to be gay...On B.B.C.-2's 'I Love 1973', shown in 2000, Julie Burchill claimed that 'House' showed her a way of life she envied. She was not alone. One of the most iconic ( for me, anyway ) images of '70's British television was Sally Thomsett coming out of the London Underground carrying a parasol, and a 'blind' man doing a double take as her pert bottom swings past. A man living with two girls was a risqué subject for the time, but Mrs.Mary Whitehouse had no need to get hot under the collar, it was innocent, good-natured fun. Mortimer and Cooke's scripts went as close as they could to the edge without crossing it.Richard O'Sullivan was still playing 'Bingham' in I.T.V.'s 'Doctor In Charge' when this got started. In fact the second run of 'In Charge' overlapped with the first of 'House'. He was born to play the sex-mad Robin. Paula Wilcox's 'Chrissy' was more streetwise than 'Beryl', her character she played in 'The Lovers', while Sally Thomsett's 'Jo' was a lovable dizzy blonde. As time wore on, he became almost like an older brother to them.For many viewers, Brian Murphy and Yootha Joyce stole the show as the warring Ropers. George had lost interest in sex, but Mildred had not. They went on to their own show - the aptly titled 'George & Mildred'. The late Doug Fisher was good value as as Robin's wideboy friend Larry. He worked so well he was made into a regular.Within a year of its debut, there was the inevitable movie spin-off. I am not a big fan of the 'Man About The House' movie because I think it was stretched to fit the big screen. Most of its characters had never appeared in the series.The format was sold to America, where it became the long-running 'Three's Company' starring the late John Ritter and Suzanne Somers. It was far more suggestive than the British original, with Somers often seen in sexy clothing.After six seasons, 'House' ended with Chrissy marrying Robin's older brother Norman ( Norman Eshley ). Fans were devastated to see Robin failing to get the girl he loved, but there was some consolation in the fact that he too landed his own show - 'Robin's Nest'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce0373b4c6a4453080316b6bfd2d784e", "input": "Review: This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a \"Midnight Cowboy\" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab808dee6ce545b796dfda8f293380d5", "input": "Review: Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable \"whipping\". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, \"Whipped\" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think \"The Man Show\" is Emmy material. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ada1cc5560bc4cf581cf7d898dcb6406", "input": "Review: This is an excellent film for female body-builder & female action fans! I think that Sue Price did a great job in this film series (Nemesis 2,3,4) and proved to be a great fighter. She has a very striking appearance and a will of iron to resist the powerful Nebula (Nemesis 2). Though not a film of great value and Sue Price's acting skills not the best to have met in my life, the movie itself was something awesome, a priceless gem for fans of female body-builder action! Well, some parts of Nemesis 2 have been copied by other famous sci-fi films, such as Terminator or Predator, but that's not the point. The point is that A.Puyn casted in that film a very talented body-builder who put all of her energy and body talent to show us the best she can do. I really enjoyed that film and watched with the same enthusiasm Nemesis 3 (a rather boring sequel) and Nemesis 4 (a much more interesting sequel than 3). What a pity it hasn't shown yet on DVD :-( Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12ae1ad33b874c048b1f40e7b763affb", "input": "Review: Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-da917ecfadb64485a9a600699b5da9be", "input": "Review: First a quick 'shut up!' to those saying this movie stinks. You can't go to every movie expecting 'Citizen Kane'. This was actually a fun movie. Jason Lee is good in everything he does. The only flaw in this movie is, I don't think there was enough chemestry between Lee and Julia Stiles. They should have dwelled more on that. Other than that, the movie is good fun. Selma Blair needs to eat something. She's worrying me. But she still looks beautiful. So yes, I recommend this movie for a date or light saturday afternoon fun. Go see.RATING: **1/2 out of **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a24ce5010e0435e8aecf55d5b298c26", "input": "Review: Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf70174f3e5b4eb59aa2aceb251ded75", "input": "Review: I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--\"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended,\" \"This movie is not Shakespeare,\" etc. Guess what? Neither was \"Road Trip\"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. \"Whipped\" tries to be \"Swingers\" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word \"extremely\" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. \"Whipped\" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-682d59e312f24c72a8ade731fa505926", "input": "Review: WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.I wish'd it would never end.Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy. This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.Incredible!8-22-06. Walt D in LV Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba78ef44b11e45b6ab000ac9e4a9a898", "input": "Review: As I mentioned previously, John Carpenter's 1978 classic is one of the first two movies I can remember seeing and being heavily influenced by (the other being the classic Conan the Barbarian). It so truly scared me that the only monster under my bed was Michael Meyers, whom I eventually befriended (imaginary friend) to keep him from killing me in my sleep. Now that is terror for a 10 year old.It is a horror classic and I am sure my modest review will not do it the justice it deserves. The most surprising thing of all is that the movie still works, perhaps not in the guttural reaction but more of a cognitive possibility or immediate subconscious. This all could happen. It isn't in the realm of impossibility or located in a foreign country (as most modern horror is, i.e. Hostel, Touristas, Cry Wolf, Saw,etc). At times it is graphic while the rest is relegated to our imaginations. I believe it is this element that keeps people terrified or at the very least wary of going outside at night with the signature soundtrack still vivid in their head. It still works because we can substitute implied or tertiary killing with anything more terrifying that our mind can create. So we ourselves are contributing to our own fears and anxiety.Carpenter weaves a simple story about an everyday, middle class, suburban and relatively benign child who snaps on Halloween and kills his sister. He then spends the next 15 years in an institution (which we thankfully do not experience) only to escape and return to his hometown, the infamous Haddonfield. On his way he kills and kills. The child's name is Michael Meyers, though he is not a person. John Carpenter uses Michael Meyers as a metaphor against the implied safety of middle class suburbia. In the bastion of American safety and security, chaos can still strike.Michael ceased to be a person once he killed. He is not a serial killer, human being or psychopath. He is as unstoppable force. The generic overalls, bleached-white Shatner mask, and lack of any dialog other then some breathing, helps to dehumanize and complete Michael's generification. This is the source of all his power. He is faceless, speechless and unremarkable in any way other than as a source of unrelenting chaos. This is helped by the cinematography (post card effect), a lack of information/motivation/explanation and the veteran narrative experience of Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis). His over the top performance and uneasiness sells \"the Shape\". This is also the first film performance by Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode, the innocent girl who deters chaos in the face of overwhelming odds (at least for a little bit). Though this isn't the first movie of this new niche of horror films (Black Christmas came out 4 years earlier), it is the most successful and does not diminish upon reviewing. If you haven't been scared by horror movies in a long time (like me), this will probably make the hairs on the back of your head tingle at the first chords of the signature soundtrack. I highly recommend this movie as a must see horror movie and as one of the pinnacles of John Carpenter's career. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1f58821b7f3d4fec8e41f21abce19ab3", "input": "Review: After seeing this film at the SF Independent Film Festival, I couldn't wait to hear about how to get a copy. Jim McKay gave a talk (Q&A) about the film afterward which presented his ironic situation: how to get distribution for a film which portrays minorities (women, non-whites) working on resolving controversial issues (teen pregnancy, teen motherhood, racial identity, single-mother households), and how to write a faithful script on all of these topics being a mid-thirties white male. The multi-racial, multi-gendered audience of mostly-adults raved about the film's fantastic storyline, detailed characters, and fantastic portrayal of \"real teen life.\" Most of the teens, however, had left the building--leading me to think this is a film best seen by adults with kids, as a starting point for discussion rather than, as many adults there felt, \"a film teens should see because it's about them.\" Hence, distribution questions--how do we get our hands on it? The Internet (retail) would be a great path--this is a film that will be buried, like \"Pups\" or other radical modern teen films--and McKay seemed responsive. As for his credits as a writer/director, McKay was _extremeley_ sensitive and detailed in his work--allying himself to the Crown Heights neighborhood in which the film is set, working with actors to portray characters in their own vision of what they think should be--with the results being disarmingly realistic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b052103bc2bb488aba6f63d7c745149f", "input": "Review: Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-91de5168625e4cf0b8b35ceb58b92fe3", "input": "Review: Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a347a2fc9ec44afb9e1492507e8de1a", "input": "Review: My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b360d519e7a54caa9a2c338a15e43efb", "input": "Review: \"Footlight Parade\" is just one of several wonderfully jaunty musicals that Warner Bros. produced in the early 1930's to ward off the Depression. \"42nd Street\" and the Golddiggers series were also produced during this era, and they made literally, millions of Americans forget their troubles for a little while, and enjoy themselves.While most of the films produced had the great talents of Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, and Dick Powell, only Foolight Parade had the incomparable James Cagney. Almost ten years prior to his most well-known musical, \"Yankee Doodle Dandy\". Here he dances in that most original of dance styles, with his arms usually lowered at his side, and his legs doing all types of undulations and kicks. It's easy to see that he is enjoying himself, and that makes us enjoy him all the more.While almost all of the musical sequences appear at the end of the film, they are well worth the wait. I believe that this film was made just prior to the installation of the production code, so some of the costumes and scenes are a bit risqué. But it's all in fun.It doesn't matter what the plot of the film is, just know that there are plenty of laughs and a superlative cast. Besides those already mentioned, Guy Kibbee is at his flustered best here.7 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dde9ce4495144269bd6a90d834f3f3a", "input": "Review: Heather Graham couldn't play a convincing lesbian if her life depended on it. Who do the producers of the movie think they are? the ABSOLUTE WORST, most UNREALISTIC movie i've seen in as long as i can remember. This movie is so bad that i felt compelled to sign-up on IMDb and make sure the rating of this \"film\" drops.omg i'm Heather Graham, i just kissed a drunk chick, so while she's passed out i'm REALLY going to pace around my room for HOURS asking myself frantically \"WHAT HAVE I DONE?!\".. Jesus heather, get over it and grow up... and i'd like to forward that same sentiment to the idiot producers... and while i'm at it, instead of this movie being all about an pathetic excuse for a coming out story, perhaps it would have been more suitable to focus the plot onto a character who's mentally unstable... like your so-called \"lesbian\" character... after all, i know the first time i had gay sex, when i left the next morning i jumped to the sky in excitement in the middle of the street... honestly b*tch, get a grip... WHAT A JOKE! and please note there are many many many more flaws and appallingly stupid aspects to this lame flick, but i'm so sick of even thinking about it anymore. bottom line, if you're a smart person you'll hate this movie, and if you're not a smart person, then you'll love it... it's as simple as that. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7aea181134934523ad34e756107bcfb8", "input": "Review: If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38dfe3c897b843b4a563874392b3d63c", "input": "Review: After his classic film noir homage Chinatown Roman Polanski returned to the themes that had given him his greatest hits in the 60s with this creepy psychological horror which, like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, deals with the paranoia and claustrophobia generated by apartment living.Claustrophobic environments are the ones which Polanski is best at creating, and this has to be the most suffocating and confined picture he ever created. The emphasis on side walls and distant vanishing points is greater than ever, and even in the small number of exterior scenes the sky is rarely glimpsed. But The Tenant is not just confined spatially, but also in the intensity with which it focuses on its protagonist. Trelkovsky, played by Polanski himself is not only in every scene, he is in virtually every shot. When he is not on screen more often than not the camera becomes Trelkovsky's point of view. And of course almost everywhere he looks he sees his own reflection staring back at him in a mirror.I can't think of any film that is more about the internalisation and solitude of one character. Some psychological thrillers, like M or Peeping Tom, manipulate us into feeling sorry for the mentally ill protagonist. Others, like Psycho, attempt in-depth scientific analysis of his mental condition. The Tenant fits into neither of these categories – it simply immerses us completely inside Trelkovsky's experience without demanding we actually understand or appreciate what is going on inside his head. We feel his paranoia and obsession even though it is constantly revealed to us that they are irrational.Polanski was also a master of the slowly unfolding horror film. Often in his horrors there is an ambiguity as to whether there is actually anything sinister going on, but they are among the most effective at frightening audiences. Why? Precisely because they unfold so slowly and invest so much time in painstakingly setting up situations that they immerse the viewer in paranoia. A much later Polanski horror, The Ninth Gate is a bit of a mess plot-wise but at least it still manages to achieve that creeping sense of dread.This is a rare chance to see Polanski himself in a major role. His talent in front of the camera was as good as behind it, and he is absolutely perfect as the meek Trelkovsky. Another standout performance is that of the all-too-often overlooked Shelley Winters as the concierge. In actual fact it is rather a stellar cast, although many of the familiar faces look out of place in this strange, Gothic European movie. Also sadly many of the French actors in supporting roles are atrociously dubbed in the English language version.The Tenant is more polished and less pretentious than Repulsion, but it lacks the suspense and the character that make Rosemary's Baby so engrossing and entertaining. The Tenant is good, with no major flaws, and Polanski was really on top form as a director, but it's not among his most gripping works. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a387b976964498d8c1b55f195adfcf1", "input": "Review: Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1c2f0fdabdd430e9d75bbd9ae8a2f79", "input": "Review: I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say \"unexpectedly\" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.\"Victorian era\" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c83815bd6a524ca4a99acc05119c5d2d", "input": "Review: I am of \"the Christopher Reeve Generation\" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee \"Roll'em\" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.Give Blood Today God Bless! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7c72858fa0b476d8ff7ff4e997c2bb0", "input": "Review: As soon as I knew Keira Knighteley being in this flick, I said \"I have to watch this movie\". She's the undisputed main character, Domino, a bounty hunter. Her \"job\", as the \"no action\" scenes would teach us, reflects her rebel, violent attitude to life. I have to admit that it's the very first time that I watch an action movie whose most important scenes are the one in which the guns are far away from characters' hands. So, this stomped me a bit. Anyway, for all the John Woo's fans, there are helicopters falling down, explosions, gunfire as if it would rain, and a lovely Keira that shoots with two machine guns, one per hand. The cast is absolutely brilliant. Going beyond Keira, which in this movie is a real tomboy, pretty much different from the lovely action figure we're used to see, Mickey Rourke is back, with his usual slap-throwing face and his potent body. Christopher Walken makes his job pretty well, as a reality show producer.Let's go to the contents: this movie has a journalistic shape. The talk show scene is \"disgustingly\" real. Anyone that watched that load of . . . you-know-what, can tell that this is the air that you breath in those situations. As well as the producer, when Domino's mom says that the reality that should show Domino's life is \"trash; no offense\", he answers \"I don't take it like an offense\". This movie portrays a difficult life. Domino, coming from a world that didn't want her, Ed (Mickey Rourke), a bounty hunter \"not so bounty\", Choco (the third guy of the band), which family is (using Ed's words), \"the correctional institutes he's been\", and Alf, the driver/bomber coming from Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This bunch of people represents in some way the humankind born \"without the shirt\"; unlucky, violent, and with nothing to lose, excepts their (as they would consider) miserable lives. The intro of the movie says that it is \"inspired by true story . . . more or less\", so I couldn't possibly tell you how much of this stuff is true. Anyway, going beyond explosions and dozens of weapons (which could have been \"added\" to make the film easier to see, and be classified as an action movie), the characters' story is too realistic to be \"edulcorated\". The interaction between the characters is various, well studied, and definitely not boring. What hasn't convinced me so much is the role of the psychiatrist (Lucy Liu, sober as never in her acting career). It represents only the reason by which Domino starts telling her story (and that's a story). Probably, the only \"con\", in a movie with a lot of \"pros\". All in all: This isn't \"SWAT\". The characters are crafted; they have an identity, a shape. They have a name and a surname (not just \"Gamble\" and \"Street\"). It's the case to say, it's the biography of a girl whose life went as fast as a bullet. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-abe1a9b079ae48ef8d815f2dabdab294", "input": "Review: If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in \"Three Days to Vegas\", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out \"The Crew\". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a17342943f749e085bb20e2edc076f4", "input": "Review: I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aba5bc3d37684ea08605b6a1094f622c", "input": "Review: 1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the \"Underworld\" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as \"Space Chimps\", also about critters in space.Go rent \"Apollo 13\" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d84e1173b924cb1b35cbd3872eb7aef", "input": "Review: I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8afca615bfc4496812351b4b20878dc", "input": "Review: Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm – and respect from the fans – lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their \"early\" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song \"Mistress of the Dark\" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.And in 1988, after films like \"Fright Night\" and \"TerrorVision\" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: \"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark\", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch \"Elvira's Haunted Hills\" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the \"Naked Gun\" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point (\"Killer Party\", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly (\"Saturday the 14th\"). Although \"Elvira\" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... \"Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel\"! But if you haven't seen \"Atomic Cyborg\", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-deacd0e054ea47918a74d6dca801bfb4", "input": "Review: Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9eb59aafc719427e93cc1621455ee159", "input": "Review: Okay, so the plot is on shaky ground. Yeah, all right, so there are some randomly inserted song and/or dance sequences (for example: Adam's concert and Henri's stage act). And Leslie Caron can't really, um, you know... act.But somehow, 'An American In Paris' manages to come through it all as a polished, first-rate musical--largely on the basis of Gene Kelly's incredible dancing talent and choreography, and the truckloads of charm he seems to be importing into each scene with Caron. (He needs to, because she seems to have a... problem with emoting.) The most accomplished and technically awe-inspiring number in this musical is obviously the 16-minute ballet towards the end of the film. It's stunningly filmed, and Kelly and Caron dance beautifully. But my favourite number would have to be Kelly's character singing 'I Got Rhythm' with a bunch of French school-children, then breaking into an array of American dances. It just goes to prove how you don't need special effects when you've got some real *talent*.Not on the 'classics' level with 'Singin' In The Rain', but pretty high up there nonetheless. Worth the watch! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdc4b8d5acb94ceba6ddeababefb4449", "input": "Review: A beautiful piece of children's cinema buried in a world of archaic Celticism. Setting the story around the famous Book of Kels, believed to have been comprised by monks from the small island of Iona, off the western coast of Scotland.Telling the tale of a young abbots apprentice who goes off into the forest in search of Crom-Cruic, the fierce headless horseman of pagan mythology. In hopes of recovering a lost artefact.The films true beauty lies in its' animation. Cell shaded in a bright and inspirational style of deep complexity resulting in a look of seem less simplicity. Deriving much from the artistic style of the brilliant Cartoon Network series 'Samurai Jack' for its genius use of mark making and background depth, The Secret of Kels creates a consistently affective Celtic world living under the shadow of Viking invasion.The history may be intensely inaccurate and the ways of life portrayed lacking realism but these facts are utterly irrelevant as the film sets itself in a world of fantasy and Celtic-revivalist mysticism. The girl of the forest is a wonderful addition and in my opinion makes the picture what it is, as she glides from branch to branch. Appearing and disappearing like a mysterious nymph with qualities resembling the legendary Cheshire Cat from Alice and Wonderland.The Secret of Kels is an absolute treat. For all genders, all ages, it's a lovely piece of family cinema.Don't expect to be awed but instead pleasantly impressed! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f189afcfea224fbc8367a7881e772224", "input": "Review: Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me. I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day. You just have to love the care bears, and their messege. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb3faf1fde854b89a407a5fecabc878d", "input": "Review: 'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2febd104112a4a2c8bfb7bd1c4ba3d73", "input": "Review: The Caprica episode (S01E01) is well done as a pilot. Really, this episode is the exact same content as the DVD pilot release. That having been said, episode 01 gives a very substantive background of the very popular \"Battlestar Galactica\" series (both the original and the 2007 remake). It significantly applies most to the 2007 series. As is the trending plots of sci-fi of late, this series explores \"Virtual\" life or environment. On top of this, we are given much background on the Adama family line as well as their relationship with the unrevealed (in the Battlestar Galactica series) creator of the Cylons. To the most part, this first episode revolves around the popular topic of \"Virtual\" life and (as is expected) early life of the colonies, and the birth of the Cylons. Over all, I rather enjoyed this episode. Although, it was not new material for myself or anyone that has already seen the DVD release of the Caprica pilot, the series seems very promising. As is the case with many pilots, episode 01 leaves us with a cliff-hanger so to ensure a follow by an audience (sci-fi community). I'm definitely going to keep watching for resolve as well as development. I give this series 8 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-efeb2d2c788e485e9d93e11048a1b0c1", "input": "Review: Bell, Book and Candle was one of the great pop culture phenomena of the mid-twentieth century, very similar to the phenoms we see today (back in the 70's - more than ten years later - there were still endless references to this film). It made Novak a huge star, put a nice item on Jack Lemon's resume, cast new light on Jimmy Stewart, and gave Lancaster and Gingold new avenues to explore in their careers (both went on to continue to play witches and other curious \"old bats\", in film and television).Along with the 40s movie I Married a Witch (which helped to make Veronica Lake an icon), Bell, Book and Candle inspired the grand film and TV fascination with all things witchy that began with Bewitched and has continued through Practical Magic, Worst Witch and Harry Potter.What I rarely see noted is that the movie is also a rather interesting alternative Xmas movie. The story takes place over the Christmas holidays, and, despite the fact that it is superficially about witchcraft, actually embodies a great deal of Xmas spirit (giving, love, family, self-sacrifice, etc).I will always watch this movie (have seen it several times since my first viewing in the early 90's) particularly if it is shown around or just after the holiday season. It has style, substance, a great cast, and terrific production values. And like Adam's Rib, it casually expresses ideas that were rather radical for its time, are radical even now (in both movies the female character is guileless and powerful), and so always seems ahead of the times. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8292f5d370614df6aecb1f2563bb4573", "input": "Review: They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2637fc128ece4999bd6d47713335f6c0", "input": "Review: I've read the other reviews and found some to be comparison of movie v real life (eg what it takes to get into music school), Britney Bashing, etc, etc. so let's focus on the movie and the message.I have rated this movie 7 out of 10 for the age range 8 to 14 years, and for a family movie. For the average adult male.... 2 out of 10.I like pop/rock music, i'm 45. I know of Britney Spears but never realised she actually sang Stronger until i read the credits and these reviews. I didn't recognise her poster on the wall so I was not worried about any 'self promotion'.I watch movies to be entertained. i don't care about casting, lighting, producers, directors, etc. What is the movie and does it entertain me.I watched this movie for the message. The world's greatest epidemic is low self-esteem (which is a whole other story) so watched with the message in mind, as that is an area of interest. The movie is light, bright and breezy, great for kids. I found the Texan twang began to fade throughout the movie and of course there are only so many ways to convey the give up/don't give up message, so yeh, it was a bit predictable. Great message though...should be more of them.This movie is a great family movie, but for a bloke watching by himself, get Hannibal. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-081f940b65d5449f9049ba6135a88b36", "input": "Review: Four macho rough'n'tumble guys and three sexy gals venture into a remote woodland area to hunt for a bear. The motley coed group runs afoul of crazed Vietnam veteran Jesse (an effectively creepy portrayal by Alberto Mejia Baron), who not surprisingly doesn't take kindly to any strangers trespassing on his terrain. Director/co-writer Pedro Galindo III relates the gripping story at a steady pace, creates a good deal of nerve-rattling tension, and delivers a fair amount of graphic gore with the brutal murder set pieces (a nasty throat slicing and a hand being blown off with a shotgun rate as the definite gruesome splatter highlights). The capable cast all give solid performances, with especially praiseworthy work by Pedro Fernandez as the nice, humane Nacho, Edith Gonzalez as the feisty Alejandra, Charly Valentino as the amiable Charly, and Tono Mauri as antagonistic jerk Mauricio. Better still, both yummy blonde Marisol Santacruz and lovely brunette Adriana Vega supply some tasty eye candy by wearing skimpy bathing suits. Antonio de Anda's slick, agile cinematography, the breathtaking sylvan scenery, Pedro Plascencia's robust, shuddery, stirring score, the well-developed characters, and the pleasingly tight'n'trim 76 minute running time further enhance the overall sound quality of this bang-up horror/action hybrid winner. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3068d8a2b4643068052099f779c0581", "input": "Review: I rarely write a negative review for this site, but this time felt complied to. Night Listener is without doubt one of the dullest films I have ever seen.There was nothing happening in this film what so ever - I didn't care for any of the characters, didn't buy in to the whole mystery type plot, didn't care how it ended....nothing.There is no comedy, no action, no thrills, no suspense, nothing. The highlights include (no spoilers - there's nothing to spoil): a man climbing through a window, a dog barking outside a hotel room, a car going over some rough ground and a truck beeping it's horn.I really enjoyed \"One Hour Photo\" and hoped for a similar eerie role from Williams, but alas was sorely let down. What's more disappointing is that I'm sure there is a good film in there somewhere - the idea was interesting and I should have felt sympathy for the characters, but it just didn't work for me.I might even have given it 1/10 but that score is reserved for the remake of The Producers Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13e4a3215e4d46639bb4efddff90a918", "input": "Review: A clever, undeniably entertaining romp starring Peter Ustinov as a career embezzler with his sights set on a US conglomerate in London. He's abetted by foxy (and deceptively sharp) Maggie Smith and threatened with exposure by jealous company man Bob Newhart. This is a heist film with a lot of brains. Ustinov is exceptional as is Smith and Newhart is quite funny. The real surprise is Karl Malden, as the pill popping \"executive vice-president.\" Malden has seldom been so loose. Cesar Romero and Robert Morley pop up in some funny cameos. The excellent music score is by Laurie Johnson. Eric Till's direction is brisk and the script by Ustinov and Ira Wallach is first-rate & very smart. A swinging good time! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb3a3f9b7abb421e90ceef18bcb1a3ae", "input": "Review: NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-144dbfbe5a054542b30ed00a7f071974", "input": "Review: It looks like the brilliant team of Shonda Rhimes outsourced the writing of this one somewhere offshore, maybe to the MediocreLand? \"PP\" reminds me any one of the many tedious, promising at first but predictable within 1 season David Kelly flicks (Picket Fences, Ally McBeal, and now Boston Legal). The crazy cases they get are so outlandish, they barely evoke sympathy or sadness. And that's what actually makes good medical dramas tick - dramatic situations you are afraid of, \"This could be me\" sentiment. They are not funny either.The actors are quite good, but the plot lines are dead and cannot be brought back to live. I'm a therapist, and let me tell you - Amy Brennan plays the most unbelievably incompetent, unethical, untrained therapist. Whoever writes her stuff flunked the ethics and the transference/counter-transference courses in Stanford. Somebody should give them a Code of Ethics to read (the episode with the nose-bleeding wife and the therapist's involvement in it). No therapists are that bad.Women yearning for men who have moved on - had been done to death, we've all graduated \"Sex and the City\". Addison in her youthful aggression towards the guy she likes - very age-inappropriate, looks so unnatural on a woman over 40, and this otherwise talented actress doesn't believe it herself and doesn't deliver it very well. The only successful/palatable developments are Addison struggling with her decision to move to LA, and the \"Voodoo Dr\" and his coping with widowhood.This concept might work with a whole new writing team. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-551695fbbfcc4da1b4d6f9c9244af436", "input": "Review: i really liked the first 2 seasons. because a lot of good characters disappeared later on. like most shows are kinda slow at first then get better in later seasons, but this is the absolute reverse. jenny from the 1st season and Valarie from the 2nd season were Sabrina's friends, i really didn't care for the others, jenny and Valarie were her coolest friends. i think for some reason, the producers wanted us to not like her college friends for some reason, they were so cruel to Sabrina. but my favorite episode from season 1 is cat showdown and my favorite episode from season 2 is witch trash, that is the funniest episode. i also thought it was funny how Libby was popular but she was always jealous of Sabrina, and never seemed to have a real boyfriend but was always wanting to be with Harvey. i just wished they could have made more better ones. i also liked how the first 2 seasons, during the opening credits Sabrina would say a few words while wearing a costume, like in the pilot episode where she's in the witch costume, i liked how she said \"this is so not me\" and later on she kept trying to change herself to something else is what i think, but this is a really cool show. it is kinda like the andy griffith show in a way because it good at first but once it turned color and barney fife left, it was longer good. but i still like to watch it, but the only reason i watch later seasons is because of sabrina. what i meant about the opening sequence is: the opening titles of seasons 1-3 shows Sabrina in front of a mirror posing with several different costumes and outfits as the cast members' names quickly flash on the bottom of the screen. At the end, Sabrina would say some sort of pun that related to the outfit she is wearing, then disappear. the opening sequence of season four includes the characters in bubbles. the opening credits of seasons 5-7 features Sabrina at various locations around Boston Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-814bf51f8bf24566b781fd0e33ef969b", "input": "Review: I can't believe this movie managed to get such a relatively high rating of 6! It is barely watchable and unbelievably boring, certainly one of the worst films I have seen in a long, long time.In a no-budget way, it reminded me of Star Wars Episodes I and II for the sheer impression that you are watching a total creative train wreck.This film should be avoided at all costs. It's one of those \"festival films\" that only please the pseudo-intellectuals because they are so badly made those people think it makes it \"different\", therefore good.Bad film-making is not \"different\", it's just bad film-making. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2f38c3d02fb45478c595ae2329cd008", "input": "Review: This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9562ca7b5092430895938cbb705242a3", "input": "Review: This show is painful to watch ...It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing \"jobs\", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a \"clique\" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a \"family\" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a49594f8bf0740c6acabf17107bfdd76", "input": "Review: I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9264313cb97419da6bac75e9595efce", "input": "Review: Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82b233400fa9455eb5690cc7227a0a49", "input": "Review: The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.This film could've been called \"The Search for Jose Iturbi\" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years. The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that \"GI\" meant \"Get Iturbi\" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them \"ignorantly\" complimenting the other's music.If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews \"of the day\" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.Trout Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1b1ce88142645f799cc93f34facfcdd", "input": "Review: The sexploitation movie era of the late sixties and early seventies began with the allowance of gratuitous nudity in mainstream films and ended with the legalization of hardcore porn. It's peak years were between 1968 and 1972. One of the most loved and talented actresses of the era was Monica Gayle, who had a small but fanatic cult of followers. She was actually able to act, unlike many who filled the lead roles of these flicks, and her subsequent credits proved it. And her seemingly deliberate fade into obscurity right when her career was taking off only heightens her mystique.Gary Graver, the director, was also a talent; probably too talented for the sexploitation genre, and his skill, combined with Monica Gayle's screen presence, makes Sandra, the Making of a Woman, a pleasantly enjoyable experience. The film never drags and you won't have your finger pressed on the fast-forward button. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1074780bed094bcc8acf75dd3f358300", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an \"Elvis\" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3090b3ef3a34968ac415c6593a6d053", "input": "Review: A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bebeee732224d899e6436872613fe52", "input": "Review: I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:Stanley and Stella in \"Breaking the Ice\". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4c982ad8095494d95eab632583be416", "input": "Review: Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a86e1f8ce0494f05bf87510afaa7e1a8", "input": "Review: Bertrand Blier is indeed l'enfant terrible of French cinema and in the seventies he always could shock the public. Filmed with his fave duo (Depardieu and Dewaere) and the usual dose of sex (Miou-Miou plays her typical role, at least the one from the seventies as little could we know that a decade later she would be the best French actress ever). In first \"Les Valseuses\" is also one of the first roadmovies as the viewer is just taken to some journeys of two little criminals. Those who only are satisfied with family life, or simply know nothing more, the movie would be quite a shocker but this movie is more than just that, it just let you think of all the usual things in life (working for the car, being bounded at work etc.). It's a sort of critic towards the hypocrite society we're living in. Great job and it just makes you wish two things : Dewaere died just too young as he was a topactor and of course Depardieu, he'd better should have stuck with French movies as he proves here that no one can beat him. Timeless classic and 20 years later it will still shock some... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-feaea438473241d1ab0b84398dce2c0c", "input": "Review: I am of \"the Christopher Reeve Generation\" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee \"Roll'em\" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.Give Blood Today God Bless! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-069eeaff7dda4a6fa1934aa3b597cae9", "input": "Review: I saw this movie with my dad. I must have been pretty young, around 15. It was on Star Movies one afternoon.The movie started a bit vaguely, but you could tell those robbers were gathering up for a score. It really caught pace after the first half hour.All the actors are great, especially Blades and Lou Diamond. I Guess it's the ensemble, they just play so well together. I can watch this film anytime.I think it is the relative stupidity of the plot and the characters trying to deal with a very weird score. The jokes are not corny but they are subtle and extreme at the same time that make them so hilarious.A perfect comedy for a lazy afternoon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2bfc2c145f044b1ad9bf62fc86f19c8", "input": "Review: It is a Frank Zappa axiom that \"music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read.\" If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: \"Wow.\" (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of \"knowing your history\", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that \"present conditions\" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual \"Return to Glory\", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7440fb46678641d181803e6bee01a80e", "input": "Review: Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year. Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with \"race relations\", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story. At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff5cffa15e8e4cd6a3ae5b48305b4d5a", "input": "Review: A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4aaa098d6c64324aa93e865e95949c5", "input": "Review: \"I Am Curious: Yellow\" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) \"double-standard\" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-af01a79a1b6740eb86ee19fd43abfeb2", "input": "Review: I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.[spoilers follow]Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, \"He's finally snapped\" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, \"He drowned in his pool last night\" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c288cf148e3e4c318dedea170fa020a4", "input": "Review: This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-849bae8ff0594c1ebb61a3cb8690ee3c", "input": "Review: If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the \"good\" and \"bad\" guys is decidedly less than distinct.Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an \"enemy\" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-56e661a5851c4a26b86834276dca37bd", "input": "Review: This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.The plot of \"Genova\" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by \"Genova\" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. \"Genova\" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42e4f515321a4dcc899b07a099231883", "input": "Review: Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the \"senior\" Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc4533ff4b454ef1aaa005cff49240d6", "input": "Review: I had never thought the standard of Yashraj films would ever degrade to such an extent! The film has a nonsense storyline which catches no interest.Saif has over acted. Kareena has improved her figure, but is not a good actress anyway. Akshay is good. Anil is also good. May I say the role wasn't good..Great deal of cheapness is filled in. Wondered if that was supposed to be the \"comedy part\" of the movie. Just because last few movies were flops does that mean Yashraj films should make this kind of rubbish? It has a history of so many good films. Overall, I was totally disappointed with the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c04e26b9432d4d1f84227f4ddb186877", "input": "Review: Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b643c688d4864da7b0e7fac164bed53e", "input": "Review: I enjoyed this movie,and after watching it,it made me wonder just how many 'Caitlin Rose's' exist in the world.How many other girls have been subjected to this sort of sexual abuse,and torment by classmates and have been too frightened to open their mouth about it? Just how threatening and cruel can teenagers be towards one another,because as this film demonstrates,who's right is not foremost important,its who is popular,and feared which manipulates the minds of youths,and influences them to allow this sort of immorality to happen.Tiffani Amber Thiessen gives a powerful performance as the rape victim,and Brian Austin Green is convincing as the guy torn between the girl he thought he loved,and his best friend.This is the kind of film that doesn't get the exposure it deserves.Remarkable,and brilliant,too good to be just a film made for TV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc4c5b4cb86b4341bfcda4b6b558cd08", "input": "Review: This movie is one of my all time favorites. Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr...what a cast. Not to mention Sam Jaffe as Gunga Din. Drama, action, adventure and comedy all rolled up into one. The final battle scene still to this day gives me chills and the ending always leaves me in tears. If you haven't seen it, I'd strongly recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ff20e0a49504972bcd36d949b335588", "input": "Review: What can I say that hasn't been said about \"The Haunting\"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6e8d5b44135450b9bff0a9f9c5b631f", "input": "Review: LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a \"renegade\" cop within a \"renegade\" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of \"gentle giant\" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf3db731a08e4e5da9146f73f4e67ee7", "input": "Review: The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly \"present day\") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called \"Bailey Kent\" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b955b9b9377a452b9c6292739e3c5e2c", "input": "Review: In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a \"Devil Woman\". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: \"Ah me!\" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8353970e64942beb95fd2e6bfd0121a", "input": "Review: Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.This movie is a trainwreck.(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.Avoid this at all costs.It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4b6242d50e74ca8907356d6bb0d60c7", "input": "Review: If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44484e0da2ae4b9bb55804a09ce26b27", "input": "Review: First let me say that I am not a Dukes fan, but after this movie the series looked like Law and Order. The worst thing was the casting of Roscoe and Boss Hogg. Burt Reynolds is not Boss Hogg, and even worse was M.C. Gainey as Roscoe, If they ever watched the show Roscoe was not a hard ass cop. He was more a Barney Fife than the role he played in this movie.The movie is loaded with the usual errors, cars getting torn up, and continues like nothing happened. The worst example of this is when the the General gets together with Billy Prickett, and the General is ran into a dirt hill obviously slowing to a near stop, but goes on to win the race. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5edd0dbf7ae41a9b67d0cac3659a9c4", "input": "Review: I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this \"War of the Worlds\", lets name this \"War of the Walking Long Distances\". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or moneyI know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!! I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9915a1e7420045a6bee9d303d1439faf", "input": "Review: The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-575c64a115b14a929eb8a6fa70e4425b", "input": "Review: I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11cec1c589ac4d2b869baf3b3ac9a32c", "input": "Review: \"Dance, Fools, Dance\" is an early Crawford-Gable vehicle from 1931. Crawford plays a Bonnie Jordan, a wealthy young woman whose life consists of parties, booze, and stripping off her clothes to jump from a yacht and go swimming. This all ends when her father dies and leaves her and her brother (William Blakewell) penniless. Bonnie gets a job on a newspaper using the name Mary Smith; her brother goes to work for bootleggers. The head man is Jake Luva - portrayed by Clark Gable as he plays yet another crook. Later, of course, he would turn into a romantic hero, but in the early '30s, MGM used him as a bad guy. Not realizing that her brother is involved in illegal activity, Bonnie cozies up to Luva.Gable and Crawford made a great team. Her facial expressions are a little on the wild side, but that, along with her dancing, is one of the things that makes the movie fun. Look for Cliff Edwards, the voice of Jiminy Cricket, as Bert.It's always interesting to see the precode movies, and \"Dance, Fools, Dance\" is no exception. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b86fd40a695146b393c2ecc183236d82", "input": "Review: Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in \"Still Standing\" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in \"Brokeback Mountain\",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e03cda445e2e44e6badf052751a1132e", "input": "Review: Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea50eb722e374138a0b2969e444f8353", "input": "Review: It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a \"sit back with a few beers\" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of \"American Ninja\" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called \"White Phantom\" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers\" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed149b11bd1543c2b26b956653b70365", "input": "Review: The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0883f2aa75644b10bbafbd56164f01c2", "input": "Review: I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ed65017528d4662aa6e534d8b1c2f08", "input": "Review: I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4fe1b364a194934a96a9907301e6e72", "input": "Review: What made the French Connection work so well was the relationship between Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Scheider). In this catastrophe directed by Frankenheimer (who also brought us such gems as Raindeer Games and the Island of Dr. Moreau) the movie focuses on Doyle and his singular obsession of capturing Charnier (Rey). The fictitious idea that the NYPD would allow Doyle to travel to Marseilles to find Charnier with the help of the French local authorities is laugh out loud funny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charnier skip town with 65 pounds of pure smack!!! A street value of 32 million but yeah, let's send Doyle to find this guy, it was his pinch after all. Please!!! The story was weak. The acting was terrible (with the lone exception of Hackman, who completely overplayed his part). The direction was all over the place. Even the cuts between scenes were terrible. Do yourself a favor and watch the first installment twice and skip this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e382f49db88c4e669258f1b0ba9937fe", "input": "Review: This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in \"reefer madness\" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8b7466a010c4c6986ca3ee41221d506", "input": "Review: I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. \"It's a tub of love,\" says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12fb5ed6e8f54e8e95197b67782be285", "input": "Review: 'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5256c4e2c6b548b4943e1f6485846d45", "input": "Review: This film, as low budget as it may be, is one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen. If you accept that it's low budget from the start, you can appreciate just how good of a story it is, how very well written the script is, and how great the filmmaker was to produce something so wonderful with so little money.All the elements of a great film are here. The visuals, though shot on digital, were gorgeous in places. The bizarre, dreamy feel of the film is captured particularly well in the scene with the talking dog, that scene was just amazing. It's such a trippy piece of work, but not done in a pretentious way, and because of that I have a whole lot of respect for this film. It comes highly recommended to anyone looking for something unique and captivating, and different from much of the repetitive films that are out there. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-289049a1544440949b9fa51e55af7c40", "input": "Review: This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.The headliner who plays \"Kathy\" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called \"cliche'\" - but it's almost completely inane.)All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8affda708e654366802969899675adc1", "input": "Review: I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.And the tagline, \"Revenge can be deadly\"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bff949e0f2949eeb3821f02238f9ebf", "input": "Review: Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cdc3038fcf8f4083a821e223029579c5", "input": "Review: This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus. …making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6bf2b831db14eb79ab78e31ad4d853f", "input": "Review: I just came back from a pre-release viewing of this excellent sci-fi film noire. It's style is definitively unique and very well made. It is filmed with actual actors, but transformed into a black and white comic-strip style you have never seen before. It goes one step further than Sin City, and it does it well. It's a successful combination of french comic and movie cultures. The story and mood remind of Blade Runner, and if you liked that one you will surely like this one, too. The storyline is intelligent, never boring and has some nice little twists. This film is a must-see for any cinephile except perhaps those who absolutely don't like sci-fi or b&w. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3856a4db88a4e5a895bdbcdd0112a55", "input": "Review: I know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41c8eab32af1462e8821b4540e9114ee", "input": "Review: When I saw this \"documentary\", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this \"documentary\", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch \"Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation\", Made by Discovery channel and BBC. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3651d20e250b4e71830670cac688ff8a", "input": "Review: It's a tale that could have taken place anywhere really, given the right circumstances. Street entertainer catching the attention of famous opera star and friendship ensuing. The aging entertainer finds/buys a male child to pass his art to. From there, we follow them through the rigors of their challenging, but free life along the river. Traveling town to town, he performs and has some degree of notoriety. Despite the times and the influences, the man is kind and good.Overall, the performances are first rate, especially Xu Zhu, who portrays the street performer. The child (Renying Zhou) is beautiful, and downright strong, and withstands the overt prejudices well. The two protagonists, along with supporting help from the kind opera singer, Master Liang (an interestingly androgynous Zhao Zhigang), paint a very interesting tale of forgiveness, sadness and love. Some have mentioned this film's remote similarities to BA WANG BIE JI (FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE); yet this film can't stand easily on its own, any resemblance is remote at best.My only qualm with the KING OF MASKS, is the ending. It was weak, cliche and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The audience was already wrapped up in the story, what was the needless manipulation for? What a shame. To bring a fine motion picture that far, only to surrender to emotional (and corny) pathos like that. It frankly made this film good, instead of the classic, it should've been. That aside, the KING OF MASKS is still very well worth your time. I was happy to see the Shaw Brothers are still producing good films. Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d17c8b068e3e40278ab75b077bf18cbb", "input": "Review: Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7173ba3299934118a68323baa1d83014", "input": "Review: Super Speedway makes a great demo of your new DVD / bigscreen / 5.1 channel sound system. The IMAX camera puts you right in the race car, where you cruise around various tracks at high speed, reminiscent of the driving sequences in Grand Prix (if only that would appear on DVD!). I enjoy watching it again and again.The only minus, and why I didn't give it a 10, is some of the driving sequences look suspiciously like the film was speeded up. The soundtrack also requires a little suspension of disbelief - all you can hear in a real car is the engine. You won't hear swooshes as you go under bridges. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3154eafb4bf746d490eaa85ea33ef50c", "input": "Review: What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some \"hero\" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06bba4e0e28f44bf99ad21b9963743ff", "input": "Review: I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b85ec69c26c4fcb9213d34af5c510f7", "input": "Review: For starters and for the record, the term \"Necromancy\" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. \"Necromancy\" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like \"Earth vs. the Spider\", \"King Dinosaur\" and \"Food of the Gods\") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and \"owner\" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody \"own\" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of \"Rosemary's Baby\" – one of the alternate titles even is \"Rosemary's Disciples\" – but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? \"Necromancy\" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance – undoubtedly the low point of his career – is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7062f19048794227bebfeb743231602a", "input": "Review: This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical \"mumblecore\" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to \"figure stuff out\". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec0342effbd142c485d512b2a37dd2dc", "input": "Review: Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b45bcc0f139e42c08b05b830334fc34a", "input": "Review: Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8eff576187c945e9938b9f8b735fdef3", "input": "Review: WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERSA couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it – I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels – Dream Warriors in particular – weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out \"we know this is garbage – but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?\" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few \"haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr – har – har – hars\" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written \"you're f**ked\". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds \"well the map says we're f**ked\". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin – a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. \"Nice hearing from you, Carlos\", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with \"shut the f**k up, man\" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c6cf614ef0f4d499f52c7d62f741f18", "input": "Review: This has to be the best adaptation I have seen it's my favourite and I think it stays very close to the book.What really makes this a must see though is the casting of the two lead actors.The wonderful Timothy Dalton is the best Rochester I have seen on screen brooding and tragic,while Zelah Clarke is the perfect combination of strength,courage,shyness and gentleness as Jane. The story(as i'm sure most people know)is this,the young and plain Jane Eyre is a teacher at a charity school for girls in the 1800's who advertises her services as a governess in the newspapers.She is offered the post of governess at the big mansion Thornfield Hall to tutor Adele the young ward of the halls mysterious and respected owner Mr Rochester. As the months go on he falls in love with Jane and puts into effect a few situations to try and see if Jane is as madly in love with him as he is with her.However there is a secret still waiting to be discovered at Thornfield Hall and when it is it's effects are devastating.This is a moving and well acted drama with nice locations and gorgeous costumes plus as I said earlier excellent acting especially from Zelah and Timothy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4bdcd3dae4f451784398931ec972a31", "input": "Review: Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99ed11f3e04a481383defa4e59536426", "input": "Review: I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. \"Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus.\" I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused \"tension\" with \"boredom\".I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's \"bloodthirsty\" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says \"I'm in pain, shoot me\". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.(Rhetorical pause.)In the stomach. \"Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f802828e46b4407b42566ad3874be48", "input": "Review: What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-19d491095e6f41099c07b2fbea0bc667", "input": "Review: I got to see this just this last Friday at the Los Angeles film festival at Laemlee's on Beverly. This movie got the most applause of all the films that evening. Considering that two music videos opened first, I didn't know what to expect since they were very fast and attention grabbing, I wasn't sure I was ready for a short immediately. But to my surprise I really enjoyed this. I thought the main actor demon guy was really good. I was so impressed with his performance that I checked out his name. I was surprised to see that this was the Witchblade guy. He's gotten really good especially since then! Either that or he was given lousy roles or had been pushed by the director really hard for this short. The girl did an okay job. I guess its hard since it was her first performance and being so young. The dad did well also. There was a lot of really nice cg work for a short, both for this and the short playing next \"Mexican Hat\" which was also nice, but I enjoyed this the most because it had the most depth and emotion and I actually cared about the characters. The other was a very simple story. The story was quite illustrative and dark! It dealt with real topics using a more fantasy like approach to keep ADD people like me interested. We won't even talk about the last film in the block which I left. My only complaint is that I only wish I had seen more of the demon character and a little less of getting started, which is why I gave it a 9 out of 10. I also thought the end credits went a little slowly. Otherwise it was beautifully told, directed and edited. The timing was very nice with a complete change from the fast MTV editing done on everything nowadays. There will be more coming from this director in the future as well as the actor. I now will think of him as the Sorrows Lost actor not the Witchblade guy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8239b6fd2f8a4551a02ab8a3b808d093", "input": "Review: Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8080a075053a40a5a09fae0be1f655aa", "input": "Review: First one has to take into account the time period this film was made in. 1995. Rappers were in it, and that added to the flair of it.Remy was a socially awkward teen trying to find his way and couldn't, until he met and was befriended by Nazis. They took him in. Nazi's aren't all this awkward, but like most gangs, they fill a void that is missing be it economic, social, emotional, whatever. Michael Rappaport played the part perfectly.Omar Epps was the hot shot track star, with a questionable work ethic and a chip on his shoulder. He kept trying to feel sorry for himself and his plight, and had his girlfriend and professor to straighten him out on it.Kristen was a young white girl trying to find herself and trying to fit in, until she was date raped. She then found her self experiment with her sexuality, and getting involved politically.This film deals with racism and like most things that deal with racism, people's own perspectives come into play.I read so many comments about how there were no 'evil' black characters but there were evil white one (Nazis). So what? Remy wasn't portrayed as evil at all, he was trying to find his way, and kept failing until some skinheads accepted him. He was scared, it was sad to see him devolve how he did. He even says right before he kills himself, I didn't mean it, I wanted to be an engineer.Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes were angry black men, Ice Cube was somewhat of an intellectual, and Busta Rhymes was just portrayed as a dumb thug. They both showed no consideration at all for their roommates, and generally appear to not like white people very much. They were angry like the Nazis but not on the level of Nazis in terms of overall badness. Sorry if this makes it seem unfair, but are there really black groups like the Nazis? No.People say it shows white=-bad black=good. Not true, the only bad white characters were the Nazis and the police, which is more or less true in real life. Kristen was a good girl, her boyfriend (omar epps roommate) was a good guy, and even Remy was a good guy, he was just misguided.Omar Epps, Ice Cube and Busta were seriously flawed characters, angry and inconsiderate. Although their constant harassment by police seemed to justify some of their anger. Remy's inability to fit in seemed to justify his anger as well.Good movie, well done. Like all movies that deal with racism, its a great piece to get a discussion going.I don't think Cube and Busta coulda beat those Nazis though. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-87a4f59b9e6146a3b36804cb8ca8abb4", "input": "Review: This is the worst ripoff of Home Alone movies that I have EVER seen! Watch part 1 and two, but don't let anyone say that this is BETTER than the first two! I mean, really, you don't make a movie, then make a sequel with the same characters and actors, and then make another sequel with DIFFERENT characters and actors! I mean, it would have been OK if this wan't a \"Home Alone\" movie, but they DID make it a Home Alone movie. Culkin is too old now, so you're suppose to STOP making sequels! Goodness, this movie makes me SICK! Buy part 1 and 2. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-241e737ed60a408880c3759a0f3febc8", "input": "Review: This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bed5c420beb440eb68e777cc2350950", "input": "Review: I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10! The final episode of the 10th season \"Unending\", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief! From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the \"apparent\" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-704d1dd8f0aa4918a2d7a19dae827afc", "input": "Review: How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten \"$\" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.Am I comparing this movie to \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. \"P9FOS\" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in \"Shampoo\", but then they co-starred in the dreadful \"Town & Country\". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcd50972105c41328b018f0264ef3fc5", "input": "Review: Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.It IS jazz.The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a066d43736344c289c0f0f6a994e8e6", "input": "Review: I have always been a huge James Bond fanatic! I have seen almost all of the films except for Die Another Day, and The World Is Not Enough. The graphic's for Everything Or Nothing are breathtaking! The voice talents......... WOW! I LOVE PIERCE BROSNAN! He is finally Bond in a video game! HE IS BOND! I enjoyed the past Bond games: Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough, Agent Under Fire, and Nightfire. This one is definitely the best! Finally, Mr. Brosnan, (may I call him Mr. Brosnan as a sign of respect? Yes I can!) He was phenomenally exciting to hear in a video game....... AT LONG LAST! DUH! I've seen him perform with Robin Williams, and let me tell you, they make a great team. Pierce Brosnan is funny, wickedly handsome ( I mean to say wickedly in a good way,) and just one of those actor's who you would want to walk up to and wrap your arms around and hug, saying: \"Pierce Brosnan, thank you for being James Bond,\" \"If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't know who James Bond is.\" He's a great actor! I am a huge fan of Willem Dafoe even though I've seen him in a couple of movies. His role as Nikolai Diavalo was brilliant. (Did I spell the character's name right?) LOL!!!! He does a great job with an accent. Sometimes I can't even hear an accent. I have seen Willem, I mean Mr. Dafoe, perform in two movies: Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man with my favorite actress: KIRSTEN DUNST! SHE ROCKS! Anyway, He never ceases to amaze. And Richard Kiel, wow, he's definitely got the part of Jaw's nailed. I've seen him in the movie's and he's awesome! As a matter of fact, my Grandparent's have met Mr. Kiel, and I was jealous when they told me. But, Kirsten Dunst is at the top of my list of Celebritie's that I want to meet. John Cleese was breathtaking. I have never seen a better person play as the wisecracking, and gadget creating Q! Mr. Cleese was hilarious! I've seen him work with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye and Tommorow Never Dies. He's awesome! John Cleese's most recent project is Shrek 2 starring Mike Myer's, Cameron Diaz, Julie Andrew's and Eddie Murphy. ( Shrek 2 is now in theatre's!) GOOD LUCK 007! Oh, yeah, and as Q alway's says: \"Grow up 007!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cd8eeca63d846af898735611b7bc35c", "input": "Review: I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cee058f3cf441428e4972aee9afabf9", "input": "Review: The H.G. Wells Classic has had several Incarnations. The 05' Speilburg Version and the classic 53' version But only this one stays completely true to the book. Nothing is changed nothing is removed.Originally Released as a 3-hour film. The director Re-Cut the film down to 2-hours of pure excellence. Its got a chapter by chapter visualization of the novels pages that \"Wells would be Proud Of\" The story is as everyone remembers. Martians Invade the Earth with Capsules containing an army of Tripod walking War Machines. The people of 19th century earth are ill-prepared to repel the alien forces and fight back with canons and guns who mes shells bound right off the Walkers and when humanity is no longer a world wide power they are saved by the smallest of organisms on earth.The Film is an excellent accomplishment for director Timothy Hines who has great potential as he brought this vision to life with a meager 5 Million budget. Today B-Movies have larger budgets. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de14e03f87b148ae9f2df292fede436d", "input": "Review: I hated this show when I was a kid. That was back in the day when kids show characters actually had accents, not just the bland, generic, General American Dialect we're used to. Jack Wild had a British accent and Pufnstuf's was southern. Like one of the others mentioned, though, I never quite understood what the deal was with the witch wanting the flute. That always seemed odd to me, probably because the flute just annoyed me and I wouldn't have gone to any trouble to take it away!Just a comment on the similarity of Pufnstuf to early 70s McDonalds commercials that others have mentioned: Pufnstuf ripped off McDonalds. At the height of McDonalds popularity, the TV show (or rather, their creators) sought to license McDonalds characters for their show, but when McDonalds declined the TV show changed the characters slightly and passed it as their own. They even hired former employees of McDonalds ad agency and the voice actors to make the TV shows. McDonalds sued and won. Search for Pufnstuf McDonaldland lawsuit and you'll find plenty of articles about it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d7f69b3e7b746a2aea2afcffbcb944e", "input": "Review: I never wanted to see this film, then one day, for a joke I watched it to see how bad it was; my preconceptions were confirmed.For starters I'd like to question the politics of the film. It hides behind of mask of women 'making it big in the city' but the only way that women can make it big is through using their sexuality rather than their intelligence or skills. These women are nothing more the whores. Are slightly less attractive girls not allowed to be successful? This is not the only right wing message of the film, there are hundreds of shots of American flags and huge wads of cash. A fine example of how the only powerful thing in America is capitalism and anything of spiritual, moral or artistic value is not even given a look in of this film. Money is depicted as the only important thing to young people.The manageress of the bar states that she does not allow drug users in her bar, and then she goes on to poor gallons of hard liquor down her own neck and then the necks of her staff and customers. Any one who knows anything about intoxicants will know that liquor can be just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than most illegal drugs.And finally, why are scenes in which the lead character is a point of sexual interest to the audience (when she is getting undressed or with her boyfriend) is her father always involved? We watch get her undressed with the camera virtually caressing her legs while she is one the phone to her father. She 'auctions' her father just as she 'auctions' her boyfriend. I find this most strange.In conclusion, this film is immoral, fascistic, degrading to women and frankly, disturbing. But what else do you expect from Jerry Bruckhiemer? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-608711b09efc48158d211ae40ab6ddb3", "input": "Review: Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying \"It's so bad that it's good?\" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d2567288012453aabdd60845bc8a9b2", "input": "Review: This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there \"prophecy\" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new \"worst ever\" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend \"Cyborg\" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out \"Nemesis\".I rated this movie 1/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-abf2f00ab00849a1a0056dad6de310f0", "input": "Review: This \"film\" is the culmination of everything that is bad about modern film. unnecessary slow motion, unnecessary flipping/jumping/somersaults, unnecessary characters, unnecessary dialogue.... basically unnecessity. (is that a word? well, it's just been invented by I, Robot.)What happened to practicality? (i.e. the car garage, the skin spray) the only tool that shows a combination of futuristic and realistic function is the card swipe at the coffee shop.What happened to showing respect for women? (i.e. smith's character does nothing but degrade the doctor for the better part of the film, and yet she still \"wants\" him. WHERE IS THE TENSION? I'll tell you where, good looks and not admiration or common ground)What happened to a detective that detects? Smith did nothing but sit around and feel sorry for himself, complaining to other people, and when they said something that sparked a thought he was off. this is such a lame way to get the story from point b-c-d-etc... it was OK once, but not several times in a row. (speaking of several times in a row, what was the \"I'm snoring and not listening to you joke? Twice In One Scene?)What happened to the small parts in a movie being somewhat meaningful and not just a tool to promote rescue scenes? Shia LaBeouf (the kid) is in the movie for a total of TWO SCENES, we know that A-he degrades women, and B-he knows Smith....... so of COURSE we should care about him and whether or not he comes to harm,What happened to Hero's? let's just forget that there are people, women and children everywhere getting attacked by robots and selfishly save the only person withing my view that I have an acquaintance with. and why did he have to ramp his bike through the air, showing off, while the doctor was somehow able to reach the same distance in a matter of seconds on foot.don't get me wrong, I'm all for spectacle. but I'm also all for a shred of realism and meaning.I have to say I've never laughed quite so hard at a film in a long time. so thanks Alex. I pray for the swing of the social pendulum back to simpler techniques, simpler stories and simpler everything else in films...... but mainly simpler techniques.Big Budget Action films: \"you so have to die\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d91dd4380ebb40949397eff51d0ab2c3", "input": "Review: Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-291d8e46b6bc4ddfa7f8591ca0a89fc2", "input": "Review: This movie is not about entertainment, or not even a movie you want to see to pass the time. This movie is a genuinely a display of true love that can only come from God. One cannot help but be touched deeply by looking at this movie. We have several dimensions of love that contributes to the value of this movie. There is the divine love of God that is beautifully portrayed. God's love transcends the heart and mind and endures and is eternal. There is the love in a marriage. While the main character grapples with his wife's disease, he realizes through God's love that he loves his wife more than he could ever imagine. He knows that he and his wife are one and can never be separated. Finally, you have the love of child and parent. The kids in the family come together and realize that nothing else matters except that love conquers fear. Dear friends, love is not love unless it comes from God, because God is love and love comes from God. Talk to someone and let them know you love them. Love does no good unless it is given to another. I pray this movie can inspire and change the lives of everyone who sees it. Amen!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-da684f6deb8b4bbfa48904a42150d89a", "input": "Review: Being a genre film fan, a child of the 80's AND a fan of hard rock music...this movie holds a special place in my heart. It has everything you could want in a supernatural movie: action, great special effects (for 1986) and a guitar wailing glam- rock soundtrack. It certainly was THE movie for all the heavy metal fans at the time. I didn't see this at the cinema because it was never released theatrically over here...but it's popularity on video during the mid to late eighties secured it's cult status and eventually led to a (sadly, mediocre) DVD release in 2002. If you're not a fan of creepy movies or rock music then this probably isn't your cup of tea...but, trust me, there are worse films of this type out there...and, despite average acting and some outrageously ridiculous situations, Trick or Treat is most definitely a wailing riff above the usual horror fare. You'll never look at your stereo the same way again. Or should I say MP3 player?TRICK OR TREAT TRIVIA- Marc Price (Eddie) played geeky Skippy Handelman on the popular long running comedy sitcom 'Family Ties.' After a string of direct to video flops including, 'Little Devils''Killer Tomatoes eat France' and 'The Rescue' he gave up on acting to pursue a career in stand-up comedy. Recently, he has been considering a TV comeback.Glen Morgan (Roger) is now a major Hollywood producer/ screenwriter. He has written and produced several major films and TV series, including: 'Space: Above and Beyond''The X-Files''Final Destination''Jet Li's The One''Willard' and most recently 'Final Destination 3'.Tony Fields (Sammi) started his performing career as a dancer on the TV series 'Solid Gold'. He appeared in several low budget films and TV shows before landing his breakout role as the devilish Sammi Curr in 'Trick or Treat'. Sadly, Tony passed away on February 27th 1995 of AIDS related cancer.Doug Savant (Tim) is probably best remembered for his pioneering role of homosexual twentysomething Matt Fielding on the popular sitcom 'Melrose Place'. Since then he has had a long and varied acting career, appearing in such films and TV series as: 'The One''Godzilla''CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' and the short lived Joss Whedon sci-fi series 'Firefly'. Currently he can be seen as Tom Scavo on the smash hit series 'Desperate Housewives'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b80a918a27c4bb0bddb93125727e6a8", "input": "Review: Sarafina was a fun movie, and some of the songs were really great. Sarafina was very entertaining. I don't normally like music things like this, but the singing was not lame like it looked like on the box. The movie was useful for learning about history because it was an interesting perspective of the Soweto rioting of 1976. It showed you things from the perspective of the students in the rioting and showed you that they were real characters. Because you got to see them as real characters this makes you like them more as an audience, and makes you more sympathetic to them as totally the victims of the white government, who you can not sympathise with. The singing of the students is correct because we know from accounts that the students in the riot were singing and dancing before it became violent. The clothing of the students in Sarafina is very similar to the clothing shown in photos from Soweto. They made the movie actually in Soweto, which is why it looks very accurate in many parts. All these things make the film more accurate for someone using it to learn about aparthied. As viewers we must be critical of the way the history of Apartheid was presented. As I said before, you become sympathetic to the students - this makes it potentially less reliable and objective. Also, it changes some of the details from other accounts. In Sarafina it turns to chaos when the policeman comes into their classroom and shoots the students. The police and army were very aggressive at Soweto, but this is probably an exaggerated event. The police and army did shoot students, but there is not evidence of them going into schools and executing people like this. The fighting was more in the streets and had looting and crime. This is done in the movie probably to make you feel more sorry for the school students. The movie would have been more useful if it had some different information about aparthied. The teacher was arrested for being against the government, and the mum goes to work in a white persons house. But there is not any information about the government and why they were doing it or any details about the racist policies and laws. -By George S, Chris and Finlay Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33b5be88300949b9bbad9691d4fd50cb", "input": "Review: It's hard to say sometimes why exactly a film is so effective. From the moment I first came across \"The Stone Boy\", something told me it would be a great film. In spite of that, it seemed very unlikely that I'd ever have the opportunity to actually see it for myself. Then, one day, while looking through the online catalogue of my local library, I saw that they had recently purchased the DVD release of this film. Which I'm extremely glad for, because the cinematography is of a stunning depth and quality that an old VHS copy could never replicate.And speaking of the cinematography, I must single it out as far and above the most stunning aspect of this film. As a photographer who pursues very nearly the exact visual style portrayed in \"The Stone Boy\", I'm a firm believer in the fact that a great cinematographer can almost single-handedly carry a film. Here, he has a lot of help from an extremely talented cast, and a director who understands perfectly what the story needs. But to have Juan Ruiz Anchía behind the camera makes virtually every scene something of beauty. And you can almost never say that. Most films would never even expect such a thing of you. Scene after scene captures some detail, some little bit of visual magic that takes your breath away.The director, Christopher Cain, has had a long and interesting career. As far as I can gather, this film is not very representative of it. But, sometimes, to catch a director near the beginnings of his career, before all the big budgets and loss of focus, there's a real subtle magic to be found. Cain steps back in this film, lets things happen with a life of their own, and then ever further. Much like early John Sayles films, characters are given space to breathe, time to talk. Side stories happen because they do, and that's how life is. Cain displays a remarkable, raw, even outright painful understanding of human nature in this film.The acting ties much of this story together. When people talk, when they exist in this film, they do so as actual people, not held back by the fact that they are playing characters. Gina Berriault's script allows immensely talented and respected actors like Wilford Brimley, Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Frederic Forrest to spend time simply existing. Whether the things they have to say are minor or of deep significance, it all comes down with the weight of pure reality.When you look at the actors involved, or the great soundtrack by James Horner, it seems strange that such a film be very nearly forgotten. Maybe much of what makes \"The Stone Boy\" what it is was the time period it was made in. There's this 1970s hangover feeling to this picture that reminds me deeply of my own childhood. People talk of the 80s in terms of modern styles and music, but that's not the 80s I lived in or remember. The look of the images, the understated and dark knowing quality of the acting, and the overall result should get under the skin of any person who grew up in or near this era of time in North America. I see myself in this. I see how I saw the world. And a film like \"The Stone Boy\" sees the world for how it truly is.For more of this feeling, please see:The Black Stallion (1979), Never Cry Wolf (1983), Tender Mercies (1983), Testament (1983), Places in the Heart (1984), Matewan (1987), High Tide (1987), Driving Miss Daisy (1989), The Secret Garden (1993), The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), Wendy and Lucy (2008) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7bb480858a5e47af83ae0cf4a8a69cf1", "input": "Review: This is what the musical genre was made of. Humor, talent, romance, and action all rolled into one.Frank Sinatra was wonderful. Nothing else needs to be said. Marlon Brando, although not a singer, did a great job winning the hearts of many with his portrayal of Sky Masterson. The fact that he couldn't sing added to his character. The ladies in the film were alright, but the men in the movie definitely stole the show.It is a true classic that can be appreciated at any age. It connects with all audiences and makes you smile and laugh.Definitely a movie to be watched and enjoyed! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d073257e4c444d13a68d713b7078c8d8", "input": "Review: I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-61e4868ba893432a9da3c0875327bb36", "input": "Review: Four words account for why this film was made - \"She Done Him Wrong\". The huge commercial success of that Mae West vehicle convinced the studio brass that Gay '90s melodramas were a viable proposition. Here we are rewarded with a fast moving, well written romp which neatly targets the personalities of its stars.Wallace Beery and George Raft are excellent as friendly rivals; Jackie Cooper is a little harder to take, but it is Fay Wray who steals the film with her stock-in-trade damsel in distress. With a strong director - as Walsh proves himself to be - Wray could carry a lot of punch, and she is utterly believable as the object of both Raft and Beery's affection.Lots of atmosphere, beautifully designed, this is a forgotten film worthy of revival. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a342b88b3774e78b80ff75aaa2f54b7", "input": "Review: This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-398f82389fe042fa8dbf04ee81c4f634", "input": "Review: Unreal \"movie\", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect \"penis\" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the \"penis\" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the \"main event\" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de4a92dde67f46cf99d09efbebb369bc", "input": "Review: This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33f98f9b41e8435d85cc07d810a25f38", "input": "Review: This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-baa74077c5ba46ceb423c40e5a184cd4", "input": "Review: HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job. ---SPOILERS---Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-445034fea1dc4982ae99df6a0c190cd7", "input": "Review: I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking \"wtf?\". Scenes like those you will find plenty. Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55784964f56e4a3388ee6b53a04af594", "input": "Review: From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu \"I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me\" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d95af7769e5407bb142ea7098abc192", "input": "Review: Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to \"Alive\" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).The very end, however, is quote lame. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82b596ef4fc8470f92079f4b57b3ed72", "input": "Review: I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to \"Army Of Darkness\" and \"Shaun of the Dead\", as well as \"On par with The Re-Animator\". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from \"Weird Science\" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from \"The Explorers\". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of \"Wheelsy\" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.So in the end I give \"Slither\" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-68615c4ddfcb4f11add50269d4efb8e4", "input": "Review: Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-deec342e3372404e9cfb1b7fd741c6e5", "input": "Review: I just read the plot summary and it is the worst one I have ever read. It does not do justice to this incredible movie. For an example of a good summary, read the listing at \"Turner Classic Movies\". Anyway, this was one of my favorite movies as a young child. My sister and I couldn't wait until every April when we could see it on T.V. It is one of the best horse movies of it's time. It is one of those great classics that the whole family can watch. The romance is clean and endearing. The story line is interesting and the songs are great. They don't make movies like this anymore. Good acting and not over the top. Pat Boone and Shirley Jones are at their best, along with many other great character actors. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ee553b125054b8db3aa243aeea8d12b", "input": "Review: This is a quirky little movie, and I have to agree that there is some quirky acting in it as well.It follows the adventures of a young man who decides that he wants to become a famous Las Vegas illusionist, and is partly about following his dream, partly about the dreams of others, and all about the travails of showbiz. I thought the movie was charming, and it has a moment or two of real magic that make the whole thing worthwhile.Alan Arkin is terrific as the magician who never was, and his mentoring of Max makes for a funny and touching relationship.Not for everyone, probably, but if you like movies about the journey, then I think you'll like this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbdd936cdb6d47ab86ddb6971ae5b4b7", "input": "Review: I reflect back to the days when I held my boyfriends hat to smell him into existence in my time alone when I was 16. The little moments of this film are so accurate and right on pace with what is going on in the minds and hearts of young girls during those coming of age teenage years. Now at my age I want to preach to them about their decisions and how life during those times are not as important as it all seems in those moments. That if they can be patient in their youth and wait to experience the hardships of life both external and internal that life would be so much sweeter. But then again young people today are faced with some variables that I never had to deal with a youth. The three main characters well played by all three actors (Kerry Wahington - Lanisha, Anna Simpson - Joycelyn and Melissa Martinez- Maria) give us the very believable depiction of a piece of reality for young girls living in impoverished situations. They have impoverished family lives all being raised by single mothers with expectation of Lanisha whose father is present but not actively supporting her day to day. The have impoverished educational systems and lack direct contact with achieving role models. These situations powerfully affect them and is their reality but all this is of no great depressive concern to these young women in their day to day. They except their plight and focus on the same things young girls all over the world are concerned with. Finding true love in a male, having good friends that you can depend on, gaining some respect/love and responsibility from parents and enjoying life. This is were this film cross the race, age and gender gap imposed upon it by its characters and the setting in which it is stamped. The Director and writer McKay explains on the DVD how each of scenes got into his head, by just observing young people of that age that lived in those types of neighborhoods. Plus you add three up and coming actresses who are not so far removed from that time in their own lives that you get a real good synergy of reality and acting at its best. The one thing I know about (African Americans and Hispanics) is that there is always a spiritual family member or neighbor that is in the foreground or near ground believing in a better day and better life and future in spite of the present situation and is role modeling that to some extent. This was never touched in the movie in order not to preach and I understand that but it also narrows the culture to having no hope in anything other than themselves. The HOPE FACTOR: I now think about my future and where I have come from and say as Lanisha did ` Today is a good day.' Yes poverty still exists, racism, sexism, and any other ism that we can added. Yes some of each of these young girls actions perpetuate the isms and are self-destructive, everything around them is impoverished but NONE of those actions past or neither present nor their environment leaves them without hope for a bright future. I was left with saddened hope of each of the characters and a deeper desire to be a role model in the life of some young girl on the edge of making a destructive decision. I suppose that is the value of film it should not only entertain but cause each of us to think, reflect and then act in some positive way to make this world a better place. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82d8097a82b841378a12ee7879472687", "input": "Review: To bad for this fine film that it had to be released the same year as Braveheart. Though it is a very different kind of film, the conflict between Scottish commoners and English nobility is front and center here as well. Roughly 400 years had passed between the time Braveheart took place and Rob Roy was set, but some things never seemed to change. Scottland is still run by English nobles, and the highlanders never can seem to catch a break when dealing with them. Rob Roy is handsomely done, but not the grand epic that Braveheart was. There are no large-scale battles, and the conflict here is more between individuals. And helpfully so not all Englishmen are portrayed as evil this time. Rob Roy is simply a film about those with honor, and those who are truly evil.Liam Neeson plays the title character Rob Roy MacGregor. He is the leader of the MacGregor clan and his basic function is to tend to and protect the cattle of the local nobleman of record known as the Marquis of Montrose (John Hurt). Things look pretty rough for the MacGregor clan as winter is approaching, and there seems to be a lack of food for everyone. Rob Roy puts together a plan to borrow 1000 pounds from the Marquis and purchase some cattle of his own. He would then sell them off for a higher price and use the money to improve the general well-being of his community. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? Problems arise when two cronies of the Marquis steal the money for themselves. One of them, known as Archibald Cunningham, is perhaps the most evil character ever put on film. Played wonderfully by Tim Roth, this man is a penniless would-be noble who has been sent to live with the Marquis by his mother. This man is disgustingly effeminate, rude, heartless, and very dangerous with a sword. He fathers a child with a hand maiden and refuses to own up to the responsibility. He rapes Macgregor's wife and burns him out of his home. This guy is truly as rotten as movie characters come. Along with another crony of the Marquis (Brian Cox) Cunningham steals the money and uses it to settle his own debts. Though it is painfully obvious to most people what happened, the Marquis still holds MacGregor to the debt. This sets up conflict that will take many lives and challenge the strengths of a man simply fighting to hold on to his dignity.Spoilers ahead!!!!!Luckily for the MacGregor's, a Duke who is no friend to the Marquis sets up a final duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham to resolve the conflict one and for all. This sword fight has been considered by many to be one of the best ever filmed. Cunningham is thought by many to be a sure winner with his speed and grace. And for most of the fight, it looks like these attributes will win out. Just when it looks like Rob Roy is finished, he turns the tables in a shockingly grotesque manner. The first time you see what happens, you will probably be as shocked as Cunningham! Rob Roy is beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and perfectly paced. The score is quite memorable, too. The casting choices seem to have worked out as Jessica Lange, who might seem to be out of her element, actually turns in one of the strongest performances as Mary MacGregor. The film is violent, but there isn't too much gore. It is a lusty picture full of deviant behavior, however. The nobility are largely played as being amoral and sleazy. The film has no obvious flaws, thus it gets 10 of 10 stars.The Hound. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2f46fb4e48f473c8f09f1e75bd79799", "input": "Review: Funny. Sad. Charming. These are all words that floated through my head while I was watching this beautiful, simple film.It is rare that a movie truly moves me, but \"Shall We Dance?\" accomplished that with grace to spare. Gentle humor mixed in with occasional subtle agony made this easily one of the best experiences of my movie-viewing history. It left me with a quiet sense of exultation, but with a small touch of sadness mixed in.And the dancing, oh yes, the dancing. Even if you are not a lover of the art, or can't put one foot in front of another, the steps displayed here will take your breath away, and make you want to sign up for classes as fast as you can. It was absolutely enchanting, even the parts that show Sugiyama's (touchingly portrayed by Koji Yakusho) stilted steps when he was first learning to dance were lovely in a humorous, child-like way. And yet, this film was not entirely about dancing, but more about the subtleties of human behavior and feelings. We witness a shy man learning to express his repressed feelings through dance, a beautiful dance instructor rediscovering her love for the art, and the personal growth of every member of the wonderful supporting cast.Beauty. Pain. Emotion. All the love and little agonies of life are here, expressed with the delicate feeling of a fine Japanese watercolor painting combined with the emotional strength and grace of the culture. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dc91d560c264c229cbaebcf8e5d5722", "input": "Review: I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.I'm glad its over. I need to go see \"Tideland\" and wash this bad taste out of my mouth. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c957c12dfec45408e1c3e25f15fa6b3", "input": "Review: This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fa93ca3ee7e4101a9cff98c63235a70", "input": "Review: I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccfa9384397e4cb9a494ed47dc2240f6", "input": "Review: CARRY ON MATRON was released in 1972 and it's becoming clear that the series has reached a natural end with the best entries like CLEO , UP THE KYBER and SCREAMING being from the mid to late 60s In itself MATRON is by no means bad it's just that we've seen it all before with a thin plot ( A bunch of spivs trying to break into a hospital to steal a supply of contraceptive pills which they plan to sell to third world countries ) surrounded by gags of a slightly amusing though unsophisticated nature . I think that's where the problem lies - The gags aren't all that amusing with the unsophisticated nature starting to show its age . Did we need another movie that uses a man dressed up as a woman in order to drive the plot ? Perhaps the worst criticism I can make is that I saw CARRY ON MATRON this afternoon , less that twelve hours ago and I have a problem in trying to remember a very funny line . That's a serious problem for a comedy Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cde5da2880684163b811db4ceb130c01", "input": "Review: I think Lion King 1 1/2 is one of the best sequels ever as if not the best out of the three Lion King movies! In the movie Timon and Pumbaa tell us where they came from and having trouble fitting in with others such as Timon having trouble digging tunnels with other Meercats! Timon and Pumbaa journey off into finding their dream place and find it and soon find it and also Simba who they raise but soon they must choose between their dream place or helping Simba face his evil Uncle Scar and proclaim his right as the Lion King of Pride Rock! Filled with wonderful new characters like Timon's Ma(Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max (Jerry Stiller). I think my favorite character was Uncle Max because he was very funney and was voiced by a funney comedian Jerry Stiller the father of Ben Stiller. Disney was smart to cast Stiller in that role! Filled with wonderful characters, animation, and story and music Lion King 1 1/2 is in my opinion the best of any sequel and better than Simba's Pride even though I will admit I really did like that one too! Lion King 1 1/2 is a great Disney sequel the whole family can enjoy! It's got a good story and is very funney! 10 out of 10! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70f913e58de842b0a23108b7e177eace", "input": "Review: I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-741b3220cfe4413ea35028cc13ef9964", "input": "Review: It's funny. It's not Arthur Miller or T.S. Elliot, but man this is funny. Kline and Fields are great. (Her toss-off line \"God, you are so disGUSting\" as she climbs in his window - great! Kline's running into the door after scoping out Teri Hatcher - great too!) Robert Downey Jr. and Kathy Moriarty work together flawlessly - until he finds out who she really is... a soap opera turn if there every was one!The scene near the end in the chinese dining area had my kids and I rolling on the floor - that scene alone is worth the rental price.Doesn't solve any world problems or show the seemy underbelly of daytime T.V. (I hope). Just a lot of fun. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21ff4c831c474569b102751857e1303f", "input": "Review: This film ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a09310eab8bc457abfb33725c26ca571", "input": "Review: PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.*1/2 out of **** I give it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-575ea4ad163c4e278cb4e59c90c03036", "input": "Review: I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievableWARNING SPOILERISHIt's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.As for the ridiculous ending….In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.0/10 – One of the worst films ever made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a686ac196bba4c8dacfedbcee2c53f6d", "input": "Review: what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee718c624fc34826aca6104dc224724e", "input": "Review: When I first heard that Hal Hartley was doing a sequel to Henry Fool, I was excited (it's been a personal favorite for years now), and then wary when I heard it had something to do with terrorism. Having just seen it though, I was surprised to find that it worked, while still being an entirely different sort of movie than Henry Fool. The writing and direction were both dead on and the acting was superb...especial kudos go to Hartley for reassembling virtually the whole cast, right down to Henry's son, who was only four in the original. Like I said though, this movie is quite different from the first, but it works: I reconciled myself with the change in tone and subject matter to the fact that 10 years have passed and the characters would have found themselves in very different situations since the first film ended. In this case, an unexpected adventure ensues...and that's about all I'll give away...not to mention the fact that I'll need to see it again to really understand what's going on and who's double crossing who. While it was certainly one of the better movies I've seen in some time, it suffers like many sequels with its ending, as it appears that Hartley is planning a third now and the film leaves you hanging. I'll be sure to buy my tickets for part 3 ('Henry Grim'?) in 2017. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-84cec958cfdc4dda8acedb7966795d86", "input": "Review: This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it! I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical! They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7704938f0394fe99fc8273ee72eded9", "input": "Review: I loved this mini series. Tara Fitzgerald did an incredible job portraying Helen Graham, a beautiful young woman hiding, along with her young son, from a mysterious past. As an anglophile who loves romances... this movie was just my cup of tea and I would recommend it to anyone looking to escape for a few hours into the England of the 1800's. I also must mention that Toby Stephens who portrays the very magnetic Gilbert Markham is reason enough to watch this wonderful production. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a04ba58484a42edbd3729879ff3f767", "input": "Review: A winters day, 28th December 1986, two bored 14 year olds hire a movie. \"Hmmmm, Police Story, looks interesting\", \"who is this Jackie Chan?\", \"never heard of him\". Two hours later after watching the film, in a daze, we wanted to know more. 16 years later (and severely out of pocket from collecting JC movies!) the film still grabs me like no other. Ok, maybe I have a soft spot for it as it was my \"first\" (Cannonball Run doesn't count!!) JC movie, but it is an excellent movie. It has all the classic JC elements, Action, Humour, Action, Heart and ACTION! Some comments say it's dated, it was made in 1985, of course it's dated! But then so must Jaws, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and The Godfather!!!!!! Without movies like Police Story where would Hollywood action be today? PS set standards, many a scene has been stolen for use in other movies. To really fully appreciate it you must see it in widescreen, you miss so much of the movie otherwise (yes, he really does fall off the bus going round the corner!). If you haven't already, SEE THIS MOVIE NOW!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53433fc20abb44879a90901b5557cbd0", "input": "Review: \"The Screaming Skull\" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw \"House on Haunted Hill\" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3533373232e94fbf9c88387ff70fd580", "input": "Review: Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, \"Beauty and the Beast\". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, \"Belle's Magical World\", is definitely inferior.The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is \"The Perfect Word\", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is \"Fifi's Folly\", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with \"The Broken Wing\". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds! The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third \"Beauty and the Beast\" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called \"Mrs. Potts's Party\", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about \"Belle's Magical World\" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in \"Belle's Magical World\" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In \"The Perfect Word\", the way Belle says to the Beast, \"You're acting rude... and foolish!\" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw \"Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas\" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure \"Belle's Magical World\" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-237965d4086b4f30a1e6173912a72ee4", "input": "Review: OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ea791e9657a45a89ddf7b1cb94e5f13", "input": "Review: ...and I love it. Lots of special effects, and for a movie that's not made on mega budget, this movie really does great job of creating a fantasy masterpiece. I'm one of the guys who didn't understand the story at all, but this was still a great flick to watch. It's definitely up there in standards surpassing Bored of the Rings, and on par with movies like Harry Potter. Which is saying a lot for a movie again, made on a fraction of the budget of these international hits.One thing I really love about this movie is that it so stretches the envelope of adventure movie to come out of Hong Kong. The topic is exotic and original. Production quality is unlike anything seen coming out of HK for fantasy action movie, and acting is great.One of the best movies to come out of Hong Kong, this is the Infernal Affairs of Hong Kong fantasy movie, and I hope they'll continue working in this area, until they surpass Hollywood adventure movies.Just fantastic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e46c68b447d54ca0b4c3055992707975", "input": "Review: Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c69d276d0769445dbc7c80afa406477d", "input": "Review: I saw this movie on the BIFFF Festival in Brussel, spring 2004. What a surprise! This German production, a stylish and imaginative shocker, is one of the scariest flic i have seen. Be warned: this is not a joke! This terrorizer has a big cast of good actors (as an example:Peter Martell as a European guru has a strong presence), excellent direction, nice production design, a very good soundtrack and a lot of heavy gore sfx like Italian horror movies in the eighties. Flesh ripped clean to the bone...and the blood runs red ...this savage Heart Stopper will grip you...and give you some dark dreams ... A must-see!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0c5039ecd53411b981fee2ecc72d61a", "input": "Review: This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2770697d3ba44635bf3a7f4e72fa19e0", "input": "Review: \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is about a woman who always wanted to be an actress but instead became one of the most famous pin up girls in the history of America. Bettie Page played by Gretchen Mol was one of the first sex icons in America. The type of modeling Bettie Page took part in included nudity and bondage which lead to a U.S Senate investigation in the 1950s.Walking out of the film, all I could think about was how far we have come in terms of pornography since the 1950s. You can go on the internet now and find some of most disturbing and shocking images ever shot, that the footage questioned in \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" seems almost childlike and innocent. Most of the footage including the bondage did not feature nudity when Bettie Page was involved yet today we have sick images where we can see women having sex with animals. I find that maybe the envelope has been pushed a little too far since the 1950s because looking at this movie in terms of today's pornography, it was very tastefully done.To be honest, I was pretty impressed with \"The Notorious Bettie Page,\" I found the film to be very well done and interesting. The movie is exactly what the trailer leads you to believe it will be and is a very interesting look at one of the first female sex icons in America. Gretchen Mol looks just like Bettie Page and gives a very fine performance. I also thought that since the movie was shot in black and white it made the film seem realistic because it made the audience believe they were watching a film created in the late 1950s.My only complaint about the film was the running time, there seemed to be a few scenes that were cut and seemed to be a little shorter than they should have been. I looked this up and it seems that 10 minutes was cut from the film since its original showing at the Toronto Film Festival. Also the ending was pretty tame and I was expecting a little more from it or maybe some paragraphs to come on the screen to tell the audience more about Bettie Page's life where the film left off. Those are my only two complaints about the film other than that the directing was solid, the acting was great especially Gretchen, and the writing was good.Mary Harron, who directed \"American Psycho\", which is one of my favorite films, is the director and writer of \"The Notorious Bettie Page.\" I feel that Mary is a very talented director who knows how to create a setting and create great movies based on characters because like \"Psycho\", Bettie Page is a character study and a fine one at that. Harron captures the 40s and 50s with ease as well as all the characters. She is a very talented director who I hope will be around for many years to come.Bottom Line: \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is definitely worth a look. It's a very interesting story that shows how far America, as well as the world, has come in terms of pornography. The film also provides a fine performance by Gretchen Mol who literally nails the role of Bettie Page on the head. And top it off with a talented director who was able to capture the look and feel of a previous era and you have a good movie on your hands. Sadly, this film is probably going to flop since not many besides people who grew up in this era will show interest in the film but I think it's worth checking out.MovieManMenzel's final rating for \"The Notorious Bettie Page\" is a 8/10. It's an interesting character study about one of the most famous pin up girls and sex icons in American history. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8705d34253ae41b3bf2384fcaf23693c", "input": "Review: This movie was disappointing. It was incomplete and dull. While Alec Baldwin tried to portray himself as the Perfect fair and just prosecutor (not to mention executive producer), the movie never showed any of the defense counsels or tried to challenge the audience with an actual meaningful debate on the subject of how a country could be led down such a terrible path.Sure, nobody wants to defend the Nazi's point of view, but THAT WAS THE POINT of the Nuremberg Trails! Four hours of simply bashing on the Nazi's.... c'mon! Thats been done already!I really think Alec Baldwin should just stick to being Kim Bassinger's husband.Right after the movie ended, TNT showed the 1959 movie, Trail at Nuremberg. That movie is FAR superior. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd34f9b0fc9e4814ad017d8cb1a37bb2", "input": "Review: My, how the mighty have fallen. Kim Basinger is a great actress but she was definitely slumming when she took this role. This movie is bad for one reason in particular: lapses in logic. Its looks like one of those movies that would have been passable with all its plot holes if it had came out in the 80s and 90s but in 2008 it just looks real stupid. This is the worst thriller I've ever seen and I've seen The Bone Collector and Twisted.The story details Della(Kim Basinger)is just getting from buying gifts in a mall an is harassed by a gang of thugs that end up killing a cop that came to her aid. From then on she is chased by these idiotic goons through an abandoned street and she gets rid of them one by one with a toolbox full of tools.So many things are wrong with this movie. As I said this movie leaps over logic at every turn and with the exception of Kim Basinger, the acting is made-for-TV bad. Hell, this pseudo thriller is made-for-TV bad. The way she kills each of these politically correct thugs(1 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic, 1 Asian and 1 African American all coming together to stalk a Caucasian woman. Don't you just love America?)is laughable to a fault. The way she killed the Hispanic guy made me laugh hysterically. The sex scene with the main hoodlum was so out in left field that it make you shake your head in shame. I only recommend this to lovers of bad films and no one else. Anybody else especially Kim Basinger fans would do well not to own this flick. You don't want see an actress you respect in a film this bad now do you? Of course not. You were warned. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6dd02a1fbb334b9dabb8d4a80a91cc7f", "input": "Review: This is real character and story driven drama at a level that shames most of what we see on TV at the mo.I was impressed right from the start. Don't be put off if your not a sci fi nut (like me...) This could be happening on earth, the fact that its in another galaxy just makes the show more interesting. there are no space ships or laser guns (None yet anyway) So far I've seen up to s01 e04 and I'm gripped and wondering whats going to happen next as there are so many possibilities.The cast play there roles with pasion. Eric stoltz is especially strong.This show really stands alone well, it doesn't matter if you watched BSG or not, in fact they are quite different. I've read some negative reviews from sci fi geeks who expected less drama and more aliens and ray guns etc but I would say ignore them.This is a really positive start to a show. Lets hope they don't cann it after 1 or 2 seasons like they normally do with good shows these days. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16244cdf62024591911c67490f35e618", "input": "Review: The first of two films by Johnny To, this film won many awards, but none so prestigious as a Cannes Golden Palm nomination.The Triad elects their leader, but it is far from democratic with the behind the scenes machinations.Tony Leung Ka Fai (Zhou Yu's Train, Ashes of Time Redux) is Big D, who plans to take the baton no matter what it takes, even if it means a war. Well, war is not going to happen as that is bad for business. Big D will change his tune or...Good performances by Simon Yam, Louis Koo and Ka Tung Lam (Infernal Affairs I & III), along with Tony Leung Ka Fai.Whether Masons, made men in the Mafia, or members of the Wo Sing Society, the ceremonies are the same; fascinating to watch.To be continued... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2bb3a21ad044be1a7beb8ae2e5f2317", "input": "Review: The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06631e1c86684a8c8e0d2066e5b3c182", "input": "Review: I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f6e8c7cbf70446f98967c8a456df68f", "input": "Review: This is a really well made movie. Sumitra Bhave has always made sensible cinema and this is my favourite film by her. This movie should have won the National Award and would have been my pick to represent India at the Oscars. It is at least a thousand times better than 'Shaaws', which is going to the Oscars, from India, this year.It is such a pity that the information about this (and all other Indian movies) on IMDb is lacking and sometimes even wrong. Sadashiv Amrapurkar played a very important character in this movie and he is not even credited on these pages. The rest of the cast and crew too are not mentioned at all. Awards and nominations for this movie are not given even when Sonali Kulkarni won the Indian National Award for this movie. There was not even a single vote cast for 'Doghi'.'Doghi' is not a Hindi movie. It is Marathi, and thankfully escapes the song and dance sequence, does not get tangled up in glitzy glamour and half-witted designer ware. It is a real life, soulful story that is made with a rare understanding and respect.'Doghi' which can roughly be translated as 'two women' is a story of two sisters, Gauri and Krishna. It is actually a very simple story, Sumitra Bhave does not venture into many sub plots, and that makes it a very difficult film to direct. The entire movie is set in a non-descript remote village in Maharashtra and the screen rarely ventures far from the house of the two female protagonists. No aesthetic sunsets in this one.The movie opens and we are introduced to the entire house, which is preparing for Gauri's wedding. Gauri and Krishna's father being a hard working farmer, the house is full and happy; there is nothing wanting in their simple lives. However on the eve of the wedding Gauri's to-be-husband meets with a fatal accident. Gauri's father cannot bear the tragic news and suffers a major stroke. Without a strong, working member the house could have fallen apart but Gauri's mother shoulders the responsibility. She works as and when she can, but cannot make ends meet. But her life still, is easier than Gauri's. Superstitions, that people half-heartedly try to forget, make Gauri an evil luck bringer. She is outcast from the society.Gauri's mother writes to her brother. Desperate for help she accepts his suggestion. He takes Gauri off to Mumbai where she is made to work in brothels. Gauri sends home the money she earns and their conditions improve. Gauri gives her life for that of her family's.However when Gauri returns home for Krishna's wedding, her mother does not come out to meet her. She does not allow Krishna near her and does not allow Gauri in front of the guests. She loves Gauri but fears for Krishna's life. This breaks Gauri completely and she decides to return to her unfortunate life. But Krishna runs out and holds Gauri. She begs her beloved sister to return. Krishna promises to stand by her. Promises that they would face the world – together.There is nothing that is not required in this movie. Everything is necessary and sufficient. Gauri goes off to Mumbai but what she does there is never told – the subtle dialogues tell us what there is to know. It just the bare story, which is profound in its simplicity.'Doghi' is responsible cinema. It is respectful to the subject it handles. It is respectful towards its audience – it does not think them to have the mental capability of a four year old.The acting is first rate. The direction is marvelous – the silences carry the story forward in a way, no words could have. The script is well researched.Anyone who appreciates good cinema is bound to like 'Doghi'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f0a44991e3d468a8f520c949555492e", "input": "Review: Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior \"The Naked City\", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90662256b82048968cd18cfcbfa24bb1", "input": "Review: I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51c5403c462b48c485059a0e35ee0d56", "input": "Review: Dear Readers,With High Expectations, Human Beings leave Earth to begin a new life in Space Colonies. However, The Allied Forces of the United Earth Sphere Alliance gain great military control over the colonies and soon seize one colony after another in the name of Justice and Peace...The year is After Colony 195. Operation Meteor. In a move to counter the Alliance's tyranny, Rebel Forces from several colonies send new arsenals to Earth disguised as Shooting Stars...However...The Alliance forces catch on...Gundam Wing is the most popular and most successful of the entire Gundam Series. With cutting-edge Anime animation, stunning action, amazing Mobile Suits, Breathtaking scripts, and some of the most unforgettable characters in Anime History.I'll try to explain the plot of Gundam Wing as best as possible. Earth has now colonized space, but the UESA forces have forcibly occupied them along with the help of the mysterious Elite Force OZ and their shadowy leaders, Treize Kushrenada and the Romefeller Foundation. Five pilots are sent to Earth piloting Mobile Suits with extraordinary power known as the Gundams. Pursued by the Mysterious Lieutenant Zechs Merquise, Treize's second-in-command, a young teenager named Relena, and the Alliance military, the Gundam pilots unleash hell upon Earth for the Freedom of the Colonies while all the while, a plot most sinister architected by Treize begins to start.Signed, The Constant DVD Collector Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4cfb897966b4e939792523d154d9493", "input": "Review: This is a great example of a good, dumb movie. No, it is not high art by any means. Nor is the script anywhere close to a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks. BUT SO WHAT! The Killer Tomatoes series (four movies and a cartoon series) are basically good-natured romps gleefully trampling on the kind of territory the Zuckers ruled before they switched to making serious flicks.As the title suggests, this fourth installment of the Killer Tomatoes trilogy deals with the Killer Tomatoes plot against France. In this case, Professor Gangrene (John Astin's 3rd time in the role) has a plan to rule France through an ancient prophecy about the return of the rightful King of France. Steve Lundquist returns as Igor, a humanoid tomato who wants to be a sportscaster and who just happens to be a dead ringer for the long-lost true King of France. Obviously he also plays the aforementioned l-l t K of F, happily skewering the French language.Opposing them is the fearless Fuzzy Tomato (like the others, FT was introduced in the second film and would be a main character in the cartoon) and his human allies. Mark Price, recently unemployed as a result of the conclusion of the FAMILY TIES series, plays a thinly disguised version of himself, passing himself as \"Michael J Fox\" as a way to win the girl of his dreams. And Angela Visser is a dream as Marie, gleefully bouncing between unabashed virginal sexuality and borderline psychosis. Oh that the former Miss Netherlands had had more of a film career! Another returning member of the Killer Tomatoes stock company is Rick Rockwell (now best known as the hapless title subject of \"Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?\"). Like co-creator John De Bello, Rockwell works both in front of and behind the camera in this series.What can you say about Jon De Bello? Not much, really, except that he had a singular vision and managed to pull it off and, having done that, has apparently dropped into obscurity. John, if you ever see this, thanks for giving us the Killer Tomatoes.The script is heavily but not obnoxiously aware that this is just a movie. Like RETURN OF THE KILLER TOMATOES, the action occasionally veers off the set and into the middle of the film crew. And Mark Price has a funny forum to complain about his own lack of success compared to his former costar Michael J Fox. This is the biggest budgeted of all the Killer Tomatoes flicks and is a nice send-off to the series. Okay, the show then moved to Fox Kids as a cartoon series (which was also quite clever), but cartoons just aren't the same. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16b61f09954b4442898db8462d7328f0", "input": "Review: I don't know whether to recommend this movie to the fans of \" Tetsuo \" or not . Why \" Tetsuo \" ? Because you can easily label some things about this movie as a very obvious \" Tetsuo \" rip - off . The concept is similar , editing is equally frantic and fast - which is good because , aside from making the movie more dynamic , it obscures some flaws caused by low budget and other factors .There is lot more gore , less eroticism and , in the case of \" Meatball machine \" , the transformation of human being into a creature that's partially a machine( sounds familiar ? ) called \" Necroborg \" ( very original ) is caused by slimy little aliens .These slimy little scums from outer space actually use human beings as vessels for their gladiator games that they play with each other . They infest the body , somehow manage to put an insane amount of mechanical parts in it pulling them seemingly out of nowhere and turn it into a killing machine that targets other Necroborgs . Their aim is to defeat another alien who is in another Necroborg , rip it out of the corpse and eat it .All in all , the plot sounds somewhat silly and I didn't expect much , but at the end I actually enjoyed this film .As I said before , this is a low budget flick , but it's still relatively decent . Don't expect much from actors , they're mostly not very good , but it can be tolerated . I liked the atmosphere and gore , certain bizarre situations and the way the movie is directed and edited . Although the story is not too original , it possesses certain charm - to me at least .7 out of 10 . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6779ac159e8b448b99c3d75d86e58721", "input": "Review: Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's \"messed up\" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than \"breathless\" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-48581075bbc244cfbf8f531de6afcb87", "input": "Review: After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41ccf1bf1f314c9e8cc8227a6204c163", "input": "Review: Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d13f74915d0420b8999a773e44a8356", "input": "Review: I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73b96e5149684a358d095ddc88ea8e59", "input": "Review: Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, \"Melinda and Melinda\" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbff882cdcd848219c7c66c777f5fa9c", "input": "Review: This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81c394c3853a4110869ec3d0a9edcdeb", "input": "Review: What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-25c1204c8f4745229257d107715c150f", "input": "Review: Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.And now... this.A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for \"the Alps\" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be \"an ancient cave\". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a27a2e4c6b8141b79cc8dcc7b3f844dd", "input": "Review: I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e69114e39184c01b62f0ceeeb99b44c", "input": "Review: This is a dramatic film in the whole sense of the word. It tells a tail that here in Greece we live as a routine in everyday life without realizing how sad it is. Sure it has some extremes.. but every now and then real life sorrow surpasses art.It is deeply critical of the goals we pursue and the whole social structure build around them. The film has a deeper understanding of Greek ways of life, stereotypes, and social structure. Unlike most Greek films that have a certain fast-food-mainstream audience, this one does not target anyone in particular but while you watch it you feel that someone put the best possible words and pictures to describe your feelings. I am not a big fan of traditional music either but I wouldn't like to hear anything else when it was played during the film.If someone told me to say something against this film I'd define the following, sometimes the transition between scenes seemed sudden or somewhat cut. I guess the editing had to cut it up to fit the 2hours and a bit for the theatres..Anyway I could write more and more to express my thought over this but I guess u have to see it and discuss it with a friend. A must see Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6339d296072641a781de6313d7b05c4d", "input": "Review: This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.The plot of \"Genova\" sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by \"Genova\" The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. \"Genova\" can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ddd2558b01c48388f636ff00dcc4a07", "input": "Review: When Sabrina first came onto our screens i was about 12, and therefore spent my teenage years watching the teenage witch get into all kinds of weird predicaments.It was always one of my favourite programmes, the witchy feeling of sixties sitcom 'Bewitched' but this time the character was cooler. I always liked Sabrina because she was smart. She was also friendly and easy going which made her enjoyable to watch. The characters at the beginning were great; Harvey, Jenny, Libby, the quizmaster, Salem and Mr. Poole (my personal fave, shame he left so early on) Hilda and Zelda her aunts started off OK, but then became irritating.I liked Mr. Kraft too as he was always that little bit closer to discovering Sabrina's secret. What i loved about the first three series was the original ideas, the discovering of the family secret and learning new spells but as it went on it became more predictable. Too many characters came and left, such as Valerie, Dreama and Brad and then they decided to do Sabrina at college which ruined it for me.Sabrina became self-absorbed at college, there was less magic, no spell book, no aunts living with her and Roxie, Miles and Morgan were annoying.The last series was boring, and i only watched to see what happened in the end. Not having Hilda and Zelda seemed wrong somehow and Miles was gone just like that. The last episode made me feel a lot better though (SPOILER)having Sabrina end up with Harvey on her wedding day to dullard Aaron was great! Overall a great programme if you forget the poor last two or three series which reminded me of so many teen shows. Magical. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7716601bd5448d582fdb91dc9bc4bec", "input": "Review: After 'Aakrosh' , this was the second film for Govind Nihalani as a director.Till this movie was made there was no audience for documentaries in India.This movie proved a point that a documentary can fulfil the requirements of a commercial film without diluting its essence. It was one of the successful movies in the year in which it was released. This movie contested against the big banners of the bollywood like'COOLIE', 'BETAAB','HERO' in 1983.SmithaPatel, in this movie acted more like a conscience of the hero whenever he drifted away or lost his composure she was there to remind him. She was not like an usual heroine to do the usual stuff of running around the trees and shrubs.At one time,she even gave up her love when the hero's ruthlessness touched the roof top.There was another character in this movie, which was played by Om Puri contemporary, Naseeruddin Shah.He played as an inspector-turned-alcoholic character.The role conveyed the message of the end result of a honest cop who rubbed the wrong side of the system which also gave the viewers a chance to forecast the hero's ending.In his debut film,Sadashiv Amrapurkar captivated the audience with his cameo role which ultimately won him the best supporting actor by the filmfare.The cop in the movie was not a complete straight forward personality he was able to adjust to the system to an extent. The anger which left half handedly continued in Govind Nihalani's other film \"Drohkaal\". Even after two decades, this movie is remembered just because of the director and the entire crew. Each one played their part par excellence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b73c1f61e0a040ffbeaf70d4910d8a0f", "input": "Review: The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ab712a82e494cf0ad63bf397699b097", "input": "Review: Another example of the unique talents of Cary Grant. A performance worthy of Oscar consideration, yet once again shunned by the Academy. Mr. Grant runs the gamut from silly to tender in this marvelous comedy about a man who decides to move out of the big city. The pitfalls of building a home are well chronicled and became the basis (loosely) for the more modern Tom Hanks vehicle, \"The Money Pit\".If you like good old fashioned comedy without the cursing and the gratuitous sex, this movie is a must see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-649f3bb7918942f98a8d07ebb9c251b0", "input": "Review: If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4118bc9eceaa459aa8aa0b1897b3eef0", "input": "Review: If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the \"four knights\" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily \"lighter\"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be4aa13001854f44ba2dd8db2a2f7b44", "input": "Review: One of the best comedians ever. I've seen this show about 10 times and will probably watch it at least 100 more. My friends and family quote from this DVD so often, you'd think we did nothing other than watch it. The beginning part about Alcatraz is a little bit slow, but either wade through it or zip on through to the part where Eddie is on stage. Watch for the \"Cake or Death\" part (Joking about the Church of England) and the \"Hitler/Pol Pot\" part (Hard to explain, just watch it). The best part of the show may be Eddie's facial expressions. He can really say a lot with his eyes. (Mascara, eyeliner, and eyeshadow probably help, huh?) Fair warning: Eddie does have a tendency to throw a lot of four-letter words in. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb2fcea1cd094c1d8cc35be2d22edb02", "input": "Review: A wonderfully quirky film with enough twists for a sack of pretzels. Parker Posey plays Fay Grim as a sexy, vulnerable, loving mother who may or may not be what she seems. The story is very tongue in cheek, and the dialog skillfully understated. Hints of humor and intrigue, neither of which overpower the characterization Posey pulls off so well. The supporting cast is stellar. The downside? This film needs your full attention, almost to the point of stopping the film and taking notes. Posey has more sex appeal in her lifting of an eyebrow than most actresses have in their entire body. She's worth your time, even if you don't understand the denouement. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6a09285fc634b158d7e2feca89f1071", "input": "Review: I saw this film a while back and it's still at the top of my 'favorite movies' list. It is amazingly put together and what really makes the film are the detailed tid bits (such as the 'Cafe Bustelo' coffee crate being reused as a cup to wash her grandsons hair) that people aren't seeing because YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE HISPANIC. This is just one of those films that is very culturally specific and particular. Please do not bash this film if you have no prior knowledge of what foundation it's being built upon. I completely see what the writer/director was going for, and he hit the target perfectly! This film is highly deserving of a better rating. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d301c5eefb340319f570057618d24da", "input": "Review: Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book \"Evil Angels\" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c705356b4e2b48ebb5c99d66ccda214f", "input": "Review: This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6506d4c05f3b4fd8b710d8e7fe0d2926", "input": "Review: Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13e0ed72b03b487186b389fe7cced082", "input": "Review: At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6e30ca0f4f8449fa0223cbae74e2faa", "input": "Review: Esther Williams gets her first post MGM starring role and gets offto a good start. This film is a well acted entertaining suspensewith a mature theme that would be repeated a million times morein the future - innocent girl stalked creepy woman hater. Estherlooks great and if she wanted to, probably could have gone on todo more and better films but according to her autobiography, pretty much gave up working for marriage. Either way she is solikable and engaging that its fun to see her in a totally different roleoutside of the 'swimming musical'. Universal was fabulous formaking films with former MGM stars after that studio begandropping its biggest names as it began to slide down hill. Starslike Lana Turner, June Allyson and others got to make quality firstrate films at Universal as they obviously still had drawing power atthe box office. I wish Esther had made more but since she didnt, itmakes this one all the more special. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bba865a43104e71b6dbddd46799ff56", "input": "Review: First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of \"Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me...\" is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d018d91ce53c4a56a008c9e777e5b29e", "input": "Review: Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his \"Laura\" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - \"You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!\". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be \"Sandy Dixon's kid\" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since \"Laura\" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in \"The Iron Curtain\" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad (\"Your father liked me,\" he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9cf13fb2566402d869910eb3300fe00", "input": "Review: I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-214a5a3c6c4244f287f61e818d91aaca", "input": "Review: I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.Well thank god a friend shouted me. Avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ccff94faba44cb78ec1b60d13f3c66d", "input": "Review: This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects. 'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-93a9ae4257974b949e6d942cb1490805", "input": "Review: How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten \"$\" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.Am I comparing this movie to \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. \"P9FOS\" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in \"Shampoo\", but then they co-starred in the dreadful \"Town & Country\". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2fb0d9d164b4539822c0f84ce0b1c52", "input": "Review: I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4db2c93c28274a6c95eb4a784c64ccfd", "input": "Review: I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7609d385c6f47c3817e6a9fde15c4b0", "input": "Review: The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a \"Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July\" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!). The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy\"Woodstock Speaker\"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8cbcd7e11ad7444287edf91abd923f39", "input": "Review: In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d7923cf0d2943a8b3baf33d01504f30", "input": "Review: Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a45a38124284376bdd5449907ebe6c3", "input": "Review: There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the \"family\" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ea21c4f2c36429e9f8759b89842a17e", "input": "Review: Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of \"Second Name\". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd60422cc3ee479eb91461cb0b8fcf2b", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the best movies to come out of HK in a long time, i was eagerly waiting to get my hands on this movie just looking at the title. Loads of fantastic actors in this show and i was particularly impressed with Sam Lee's impossibly believable insane behavior and Edison's portrayal of a killer machine, which totally reversed his normal idol image. i would definitely recommend to those looking for a stylish and action packed movie. However, i must warn you, this is also an equally depressing movie, as every character in the movie is in some kind of dead end and trouble of their own, and struggling to breathe. Makes you think about what is life about really. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb0549ad8f104f00a3e50fc776c2f318", "input": "Review: While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebb04c17741b44fa9616626263346f38", "input": "Review: I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.I don't recommend this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ec1db832de647f4be1e857b0a368c0b", "input": "Review: From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50f1a6621f6c41f9bf950feb4c006023", "input": "Review: There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking \"that's it?\". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e8eb548bc4043f3a70aa09f88a658a8", "input": "Review: This was my second time watching the film (via the French-language version as opposed to the first, which was dubbed in Italian) and I feel that it improves on subsequent viewings.A compelling if slowly built-up character study that's beautifully shot and with the Parisian settings being equally impressive. In the long run, it's not top-grade Polanski and I would rank it at number 9 in his filmography but it's still a confident mix of subtle chills and, surprisingly, often broad comedy. It also features a fine cast, all of whom are in good form, but especially Isabelle Adjani, Melvyn Douglas and Jo Van Fleet.Even so, I'm a bit baffled by the sudden compulsion for Trelkovsky to 'change' into the previous tenant; apart from the owner of the café opposite the apartment building, where he is given whatever Simone used to have without asking him if he wished any different, there is little to indicate (as far as I could discern, anyway) that this is what everybody wanted of him! Okay, so he found Simone's belongings still lying in the apartment but what exactly drove him to wear her dresses and make himself up as her (even if he apparently started doing this unconsciously)? Following his nightmarish visions in the bathroom, the last section of the film (where Adjani all but disappears) is almost anti-climactic - especially the scene where the landlord and the other tenants witness his attempted suicide as if it were a night at the Opera, a concept which had already been used 46 years earlier by Jean Cocteau in THE BLOOD OF A POET (1930)!The ending, then, is at once predictable and unresolved: just what made the two occupants of this particular apartment jump out of the window?!; I remember this factor bugging me on first viewing as well, and I'm sorry to say it's no clearer now! Mind you, the film's first two-thirds are pretty solid but I wish that Polanski had been less reliant on obscure plot points throughout. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1de2193ace8845d58b8aec824bac9ca5", "input": "Review: I went to a screening of this movie and while it had a couple moments that made me laugh, it had some very major flaws. It first of all presents itself to be the humorous exploits of a real-life divorcee trying to find love in LA. What it morphs into is a depressing, narcissistic, and unfunny romp through the history of the film director's love life and professional life. Jokes wear thin quickly and you find yourself suddenly not caring how this man's dates progress. The ridiculousness is that the director simultaneously presents himself as an extremely annoying and heavily flawed character and then expects us to be concerned. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c18598ff2b44112ad740cedceabca73", "input": "Review: How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of \"funny notion\" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.The director/producer tried to go \"tear jerker\" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5e9f2c4bd44496892e12f4bc0f1f829", "input": "Review: This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's \"Mysterious Island\". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. \"OK now stand up.\" As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2cd22c6a15d4087b2a7130b0850800c", "input": "Review: Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of \"Sex in the City\" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cca0a9b672e4431283c6bd7721e8bcdd", "input": "Review: Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-022953d6ff3e49848b2c76c679231e16", "input": "Review: There is a really good movie lurking just beneath the surface of the layers upon layers of cheese that is \"the Pagemaster\".I found this out when I watched this again this morning after neglecting it for years and years. I remember hating it with a passion when it first came out, but this time, I found that the special effects are quite good. The plot is just \"the Neverending Story\" with a creativity-endectomy, but it's an okay little flick for anyone who just wants some really awesome eye-candy. The animation is amazing, and I especially liked how the animators let their characters look and act a bit more surrealistic than the norm. I'm giving it a grade of three as I *would* have given it a two (just for parody value) if I had ever decided to watch this movie expecting it to absolutely blow my mind story-wise. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7c9a49568ec34471b04808da40ae3363", "input": "Review: This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss \"TRUE CRIMES\" or \"THE HURRICANE\". My wife and me gave 8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fed2be9a11344fcbbb9b2a94cf3e99d5", "input": "Review: This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5c7853c8d34401a9dac71bbaabc60ab", "input": "Review: Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54222f0eeac94c5a880f29412ced6a8b", "input": "Review: This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd482f3cf50d4eca98d6fd54f2927223", "input": "Review: I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think \"Kettle of Fish\" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7910ebc3a24646c0b6313cbb6daf3d1f", "input": "Review: This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation. Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f23c5727eecb40118e2af4ea66ffaef6", "input": "Review: Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going \" That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie.\" The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-221658c1adc040989971701991ddec4f", "input": "Review: A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf9886b2d3b040589baabd27a9666e32", "input": "Review: Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, \"Rats,\" what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.2 out of 10, kids. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-62cf6854652b4d998469b0c145845462", "input": "Review: The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e08c4743fb3d4673b61f68727b81d716", "input": "Review: Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were \"losers\" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who \"hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office\"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the \"uncool\" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series \"Joan of Arcadia\") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96ddbc058cb341358641b864eadab666", "input": "Review: I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bcb670cbed34158b3362924ab9575dc", "input": "Review: I remember the first time I saw this movie -- I was in the office working over the weekend & the TV was on for background noise. But I gradually found myself more & more engaged in this movie I'd never seen or heard of, until I was completely absorbed. A Matter of Life & Death (the British title -- Stairway to Heaven in the US) is delightful, compelling, whimsical, & moving, all in one superbly-written, well-acted, perfectly-directed package. It's a classic that really does rank right up there with Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, & Chariots of Fire. WHY has it never received the same public notice & video-store prominence? Fortunately, SOME knowledgeable critics HAVE put it on their \"Top 100 of all time\" lists. There IS hope -- 1940's Fantasia wasn't a hit 'til the '60s, & the Wizard of Oz was a dud at the box office, but made a hit by TV. Buy it -- rent it -- watch it -- demand it! You WON'T be disappointed! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08e4456abf6544ac9132b972fddc9925", "input": "Review: This apology for a movie is about absolutely nothing! Rachel Griffiths must have needed the money. The film must have been made on a very low budget, because the lighting was non existent. I made a vow if I ever see Pete Postlesumthingor other I'll commit suicide. I'd be happy to know if there was 1) a plot or 2)a script. My biggest regret is I wasted my time watching this rubbish. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0018b2bf333e4936800ac60398c06b35", "input": "Review: Director Vincenzo Natali's Cypher is a complex and imaginative thriller which, although requiring some suspension of belief and plenty of concentration, manages to be a thoroughly entertaining experience.Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), a stay-at-home husband with an overbearing wife, decides to add a bit of spice to his mundane existence by getting a job as an industrial spy at high-tech company Digi Corp. His job is to travel to conferences across the country (under the assumed identity of Jack Thursby) and secretly broadcast the speeches given back to his bosses, via a nifty little electronic pen-gizmo.In reality, however, the speeches are merely a cover for far more nefarious activities. Morgan, along with his fellow conference attendees, is being brainwashed. The drugged water they are drinking puts them into a temporary coma, during which they are told to forget their pasts and permanently adopt their new identities. Once they are totally convinced that they are someone else, they are told to apply for jobs with rival companies, where they are able to indulge in corporate espionage without suspicion.But Digi Corp's plans are scuppered by the intervention of shady operative-for-hire Rita Foster (Lucy Liu), who opens Morgan's eyes to what is really happening. She gives Morgan an antidote to the mind altering drugs so that he can resist the brainwashing techniques. She also warns him that if Digi Corp suspects that he does not fully believe he is Jack Thursby, then he will be 'eliminated'. Morgan plays along, and applies for a job at rival business Sunways.However, arriving at his new workplace, he is given a polygraph test and is immediately rumbled as a spy. Fortunately, the bosses at Sunways see this as an ideal opportunity to feed false data to Digi Corp and Morgan becomes a double agent.From hereon in, things get progressively more complicated; the plot twists and turns and poor old Morgan ends up not being able to trust anyone. In an exciting finale, all eventually becomes clear (but only if you've been following events very carefully).Director Natali handles proceedings confidently and certainly has a great ability to produce a classy looking film for a relatively low budget. He manages to get some great performances from his talented cast; Jeremy Northam,in particular, is fantastic—his portrayal of the initially somewhat nervous Morgan is played to perfection.Cypher is another fascinating movie from a director who is willing to take chances and I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming projects, High Rise and Necropolis. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f4d568bfad3425bb9afbd7c7f091048", "input": "Review: What a wonderful movie, eligible for so many labels it never gets: Science fiction, film-noir, with a script and dialog of high intelligence which assumes an educated, cultured audience.....the kind of English language movie only done in pre-1960 England (and shown only in USA art movie houses when it first arrived), and never, ever done in the USA.Main characters in The Man In The White Suit(1951) starring Sir Alec Guiness and Joan Greenwood routinely use polysyllabic, science reference words like \"polymer\" and discuss and explain concepts of chemistry like \"long chain molecules\" and then communicate the importance of these to the average man and the benefits science provides him.The Man In The White Suit (1951) is the opposite of the video-game explosion movies which now (2009) dominate world cinema, and certainly dominate major USA cinema.......it's a carefully acted, intelligently told story delivered by gifted and believable educated English actors (who play educated, accomplished people), and it's all done with comedy, charm, pathos, and sense of irony which ancient Greek dramatists would have approved of.Everybody should see this movie, and someday, somehow, some worthy filmmaker and his supporters should make another like it.It's wonderful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d182d38756f444ead14f2058b49cdd1", "input": "Review: I have seen \"Miracles Still Happen\" now at least four times. I never tire of this fantastic movie. From the very beginning, it holds a person's interest. As the movie progresses and the plane crashes the story becomes very intense as we watch this young girl trying to survive alone and frightened in the Amazon, following a plane crash in which she was the only survivor. Losing her mother in this plane crash as well makes this movie even more dramatic as we see the perils this young girl had to endure during her ten days in the Amazon. To think this really did happen is just unreal and to think that anyone could actualy survive this is unspeakable as we see the wild animals, snakes and other reptiles, the enormous forests and wildlife as well as countless insects. As the movie progresses we see the many dangers this girl has to face as she tries to follow the river in hopes of it leading her to a town. Remembering what her father told her about how a stream will always lead to a river and then into an even larger river and this means it will eventually lead to a community, this young girl keep track of the tiny stream which eventually lead into a huge river all throughout the movie. At times having to swim in dangerous waters, alone, frightened, injured, she always managed to keep going. Towards the end of this movie it was obvious she would not have been able to continue much longer as she had not eaten in ten days and only had water to drink and was very sick and tired from her perils. Eventually as she sees a canoe, she realizes there has to be a village and men find her and they take care of her and then take her to a hospital where her father comes to see her, after fearing she was dead along with the many other passengers. Such a dramatic movie and so heartwarming to see her father's face when he sees his daughter is actually still alive after all this time in the Amazon! Movies like this aren't made much those days. I will still see it again and I know I will never tire of it! To think this girl was the only one single survivor of this airplane is just unspeakable! Also the fact she only maintained a few very slight injuries was even more remarkable, whereas everyone else on this airplane perished in the horrific crash into the wilds of the Amazon. A brilliant movie, superbly acted out indeed and one I will treasure forever and love to continue watching! Strongly recommended by me for sure! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-97ff9093db7d482f86ef881888bad852", "input": "Review: A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ad62ea9eab44d04b3b644ef7c62e18c", "input": "Review: If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay. Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the \"WORST performance and any role till date\" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bad154ddcdc746f599860d163415ffc2", "input": "Review: I don't know who could find fault with a simply human and funny film like this with lots of delights for your heart. I enjoyed each minute of it and guessed the ending half way through the movie -- but that did not disappoint me at all. It will not only touch your heart but it's such a good family friendly film--we need many more like these! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0af286cc276043bc88e49e7a6f76c131", "input": "Review: I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on \"Cliffhanger Theater\" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, \"acting\", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like \"thought\" or \"introspection\". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled \"up/down\" and \"fast/slow\". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of \"Gangbusters\". It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling \"DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!\" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, \"Phantom Creeps\" had a better plot, and \"Undersea Kingdom\" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than \"Radar Men\", but it's an OK time-waster. BTW...why \"Radar\" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been \"Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f7e33792f084aa2a132823b80afed1a", "input": "Review: Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c24cc17ec4c40d282105cce9d6bc7f3", "input": "Review: I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a9a5e91b3bf481581f75a818219cad0", "input": "Review: Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the \"seminary\" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc47d20e10b4410f8158400864b102cb", "input": "Review: Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian \"sandals and toga\" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why \"Gladiator\" went over well, but \"Gladiator\" did not have all the romance novel sex.Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d409e613774b48b886e309157a984ac1", "input": "Review: I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10f116c8ce764185a5fae131fad2ce15", "input": "Review: Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.-Matthew McGuire Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fc36c817927454799424daf1ca4cfba", "input": "Review: NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-962a3f5b1af441a7a3c9e29092cd7c94", "input": "Review: I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home....... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-792d6a71e4d04fc584a738a371754ae5", "input": "Review: This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake. You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture. What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d90bd8e4864e436ca720ff09f7755fc8", "input": "Review: I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c64782d7dc842c988f44cf12b747a46", "input": "Review: Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever \"zombie\" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying \"This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW\" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2daff676062e4c399c91bd12614aa91c", "input": "Review: The true measure of any fictional piece of work is whether or not the characters grow from their experiences and emerge from the experience altered in some significant way (note that this change need not be positive or beneficial) at the end.By that measure, Enchanted April is a resounding success. As a film in general, it succeeds quite well-excellent ensemble cast, well-developed characters you come to care about, wonderful script and beautiful sets and locations. In short the film is, well, enchanting. Although all the performances are first-rate, three must be mentioned-Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent and Joan Plowright. It says something when Miranda Richardson does her usual fine work and yet is overshadowed by so many others in the cast. Most highly recommended, particularly if you are a romantic at heart. Further Deponent Saith Not. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-716149e2f7e046fab22354be3b7a547b", "input": "Review: Perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that every joke needs to be followed with an insult at the people in the crowd that aren't laughing. If there's anybody who's insecure, it's a comedian who won't shut up about his audience.Then again, perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that he doesn't get off his free speech high horse. If you want to be funny, just make a joke, don't explain all the reasons why you're saving the American way with your failed attempts at generating laughter.Hmm... actually... the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that it substitues meanspirited jabs at ethnicities for legitimate humor. Avoid this like the plague. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cc300ef39d64dd0a6cc4d96a23c2c4a", "input": "Review: When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the \"Happy Cat\" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's \"all the rage abroad\"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9902443a341442518f4eebd9cf71883e", "input": "Review: Kenneth Branagh shows off his excellent skill in both acting and writing in this deep and thought provoking interpretation of Shakespeare's most classic and well-written tragedy. Kenneth plays the role of Hamlet with such a distinct emotion that provokes tears. Kate Winslet's performance is also of great note. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8120fa4cff64d36841c27c725f213d7", "input": "Review: A hot-headed cop accidentally kills a murder suspect and then covers up the crime, but must deal with a guilty conscience while he tries to solve a murder case. Andrews and Tierney are reunited with director Preminger in a film noir that is as effective as \"Laura,\" their earlier collaboration. Andrews is perfectly cast as the earnest cop, a good guy caught up in unfortunate circumstances. The acting is fine all around, including Malden as a tough police captain and Tully as Tierney's protective father. The screenplay by Hecht, a great and prolific screenwriter, is taut and suspenseful, and Preminger creates a great atmosphere. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b33a578233b497cb7febfc9f61630b0", "input": "Review: This film seems to be well remembered as the time Tom & Jerry signed a peace treaty. Things are idyllic for a time but, predictably, it goes sour. Probably the most memorable moment was the endless fight involving a pipe, a frying pan, and a baseball bat that the two plus Butch the dog engage in at the beginning and end of the short. I enjoyed one a bunch and you should try to catch it on Cartoon Network. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82ae027d4a4340fe80722f900795aa7b", "input": "Review: Title: Robot Jox (1990) Director: Stuart Gordon Cast: Gary Graham, Anne Marie Johnson, Paul Koslo Review: Stuart Gordon who we usually associate with extremely gory horror films such as Re-Animator, From Beyond, Dagon and Castle Freak, took a small detour here and did a little sci-fi flick. I stress the word \"little\" since this is a very low budget flick, and there in lies its main weakness.The story takes place in the future. A world in which the great superpowers (that according to this movie are the United States and Russia) duke out their differences not by going on a full blown world war...but by fighting gladiator style battles with gigantic robots. Our hero Achilles must go up against the evil Russian robot fighter called Alexander. Lots of cheap stop motion animation ensues.Well, the idea is awesome I guess. The great nations settleling territorial disputes with giant robots? Interesting premise and one that could have been handled properly if the proper budget had been available. Unfortunately what could have been a fun movie ends up being an embarrassment for an otherwise great director.I as a kid loved this movie, and I guess if you want any enjoyment out of this movie, you'll have to revert back to little kid mode to have some fun with it. I showed this film to some of my friends and as the movie progressed my friends where like \"what the hell is this piece of crap franco?\" And I'm like well this movie is a sci-fi by one of my favorite directors Stuart Gordon?\" But as the movie progressed into corny territory I almost felt like pressing stop and not having them go through that torture. I could go through it, cause I loved this film as a kid, and there's still a little nostalgia attached to watching it. But everyone else was just not going to get it.And I myself realized that the movie isn't really that good. First off. The movie is about giant robots kicking the hell out of each other. And in order to achieve this in a credible fashion you'd have to use some damn good special effects to make it work, expensive effects that would help us the audience suspend disbelief. But unfortunately this being a small scale movie, from a small scale company (Empire Pictures, which went bankrupt after making this film!)the effects only help us giggle and laugh at them. Heck even the sets and some of the wardrobe looks unfinished or half assed.OK granted, once you accept that you are watching a mixture of moderate stop animation and miniatures well you can sort of give in to the film and even enjoy the big robots kicking the hell out of each other. There are certain scenes when the robots are fighting that are kinda cool, and made me go \"thats why I liked thid movie!\" But every know and them, some crappy effect will take you right out of that protective little cocoon you were trying to hide in. And boom, your right back into realizing this film just doesn't live up to its premise.And heres another thing that sort of bothered me a bit about the movie. This movie is basically a movie for kids. You know, giant robots duking it out? Stop motion animation? Hello? But this movies dialogue had a lot of sexual innuendos and the violence gets a little bloody. So I kept asking myself is this a kids movie or not? After a while I just came to the conclusion that basically this was a kids movie with adult sensibilities, which really isn't a good mix.So for those of you who don't feel that certain naive childlike charm of watching two robots fighting each other and if you don't have a nostalgic connection to this movie (like I do) well Id suggest you steer clear away from this one. Gordons a great director, but this movie he made, just didn't do it for me. Well, at least not now that I'm a full grown adult.Rating: 2 out of 5 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be25b64be97b44c1b040198c74a0bc34", "input": "Review: This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage (…)Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes… do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f32034ea40ea4dee830ebbf002dc08e4", "input": "Review: How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81cbd80e69f04d20bb3647e5ad67a7d8", "input": "Review: Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1c78cd7709f4303b19144d0a4e9822b", "input": "Review: When I started watching the show I said \"Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!\". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e96eb57426c48c785507160d4f6f7e4", "input": "Review: No scenario, bad actors (poor Melissa Gilbert)... Beurk Beurk Beurk ...Give a such budget to make this... In Belgium, we make ten films which win all prices in Cannes with this.Last time that I've seen a such NULL-Film was Hypercube. But scenario was better.Is anyone knows if the director was a graduate in school-film or a cop ?The better things in this film was the word \"End\".Why authorize to sell this ? 1ç is to expensive. I've pay ten dollars to buy this.For me, pay for this was my BIG MISTAKE of millennium.Too bad.Next time I'll break my arm but buy this type of sh*t. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-140bec041a174a27a1478a8b3a605c4e", "input": "Review: This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable \"Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death\".Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36252d49010344ca8e7ac08058fc11d4", "input": "Review: Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the \"Jeep\" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the \"Jeep\"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06c3467b482546a0bacd44da8d935c1b", "input": "Review: This series got me into Deighton's writing and the genre when I was younger and I love this presentation of the story. I would however disagree with the above comment. From what I have read in the past, it is not Holm's performance that lead Deighton to refuse to have the series released but the butchering that all three books received in the translation to the screen. A great example of this is the rewrite of the boarder crossing that ended Samson's field career. The scene is not in the book, the character who dies in the minefield was never in any of the books and the crossing in Sinker was from East Germany to West Germany, not the Polish frontier. This whole storyline is cloth. The changes in Set similarly damage the integrity of the story. My perspective on Holm's performance was that he portrayed the disorientation of Samson during his wife's defection excellently and I believe comported himself well in portraying the aging field agent desperately trying to bridge the class divide. Samson both pays for his father's idealism and suffers due to its influence on his life. As Clevemore comments, had he gotten himself an education he would have probably been running the department. I think the true loss of performance is due to physical appearance more than anything. Holm is diminutive when compared to the Samson of the book - a physically impressive man capable of using his size to impose a presence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6036fbee8e554ae08d4f9b2940d3b391", "input": "Review: Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-527d2976c21648d8a1bcf0ad1415fde8", "input": "Review: This film has a special place in my heart, as when I caught it the first time, I was teaching adult literacy. It rang very true to me and even an outstanding student I had at the time. There are scenes which make you gulp with sudden emotion, and those which even put a smile on your face through sheer identification with the characters and their situation. Excellent performances by Jane Fonda and Robert DeNiro that rank with their best work, a great turn by a young Martha Plimpton, an inspiring story line, and a haunting musical score makes for a most enjoyable and rewarding experience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-74c38370c0bf4689afd082c318f61a92", "input": "Review: This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film \"Beowulf and Grendel\". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. \"Grendel\" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-44fd17972694452ca209c74287096994", "input": "Review: My husband is a huge Robin Williams fan. I like him too, but have generally found that he should \"stick to what he does best\" and focus on comedic roles. My thoughts were confirmed with this movie. I was completely bored throughout the entire film. The story was predictable. I realize it was inspired by a true story. But, my guess is that there could have been some suspense or intrigue even while maintaining truth in the story. None of the characters were well developed. There was a side story about the main character and his partner. This relationship could have been explored further. More important, though, would have been a deeper exploration of the mother of the \"boy\". Her psychological profile would have been interesting to delve into. She obviously has a long history that was not touched upon except in the most superficial way. If my husband wasn't such a huge Williams fan, we would have left 20 minutes into it. Too bad I can't get my $20 or 2 hours back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbb8f75eddfb4a13b5c0e4ec862b3b7f", "input": "Review: I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8de67c139a5045269d4924e8e68cbef2", "input": "Review: This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b19d8e2e5ce4f7ead24b23d19938b20", "input": "Review: Diego Armando Maradona had been sixteen years of age in 1978 when Argentina won the World Cup at home. He was already the biggest star, and the greatest player in a country obsessed with football. Everybody had begged Cesar Luis Menotti to play the boy genius, but the manager thought that he was not yet ready.History records that Argentina won the 1978 World Cup fairly convincingly - they hadn't really needed Maradona. The same was not true in 1982. Spain was a catalogue of disaster for Argentina. Menotti - still chain smoking - played Diego this time, but the occasion was too much for such a temperamental boy. Maradona had signed for Barcelona on June 4 1982 for around $7 million - nine days later he played his first game at the Camp Nou and Belgium beat Argentina one-nil. It was not an auspicious debut, and even though he scored twice against Hungary in the next match, Maradona will remember the mundial as the site of his nadir - a crude, petulant foul on Brazil's Batista in the Second Round that abruptly ended his tournament and Argentina's reign as world champions.But now that was all behind him. Maradona had muddled his way through some crazy times at Barca, and left in 1984 to join Napoli. It was as if he was finally home. The Neapolitan tifosi had done everything to entice Maradona to poor, underachieving Napoli. Gifts from old women and pocket money from young boys nestled uncomfortably with the Camorra's millions as part of the transfer fee, and the city was determined to make him feel at home. So, for the time being at least, Maradona was El Rey - he brought his Argentine side to Mexico as one of the favourites, and with a new manager - Carlos Bilardo replacing Menotti.Maradona is the hero of this story, a one-man World Cup winning machine. In 1982, hundreds of young men had died in a pointless battle for the Falkland Isles; now the British press yearned for a rematch (with the same result) in Mexico City. Maradona was still regarded with distinction in England, remembered more for a superb performance in Britain during a 1980 tour than for Spain. But he was still an Argie: the enemy.England actually started well, and Lineker could have scored after only twelve minutes. A key event happened on 8 minutes. Fenwick, the big and limited English defender, was booked - he was now terrified of making any challenges around the penalty area.After a tense first 45 minutes, the second half started with a bang. Maradona danced forward after 50 minutes, but could find no way through. Similarly Valdano's attempt hit only white shirts. Then the moment of infamy that serves as Diego's epitaph. Hodge bizarrely hooked the ball back into his own penalty area, Shilton hurriedly jumped to claim - but there was Maradona, somehow rising above the English goalkeeper to thrust the ball into the net. How had he done it? Simple: handball.The most famous foul in football history passed in near slow motion. Every spectator waited for Mr Al-Sharif of Syria to blow for the foul (he didn't). Shilton looked and appealed to the linesman - he ran back to the centre circle. Unless he assassinates the Pope, or becomes the first man to step foot on Mars, when the great man dies this moment will be shown first - in long, lingering, slow motion, followed by the look of glee on his face. The next image will be his next gift to the world - the World Cup's finest goal.Burruchaga stroked the ball to Maradona who was ambling around on the right hand side of his own half. He span, and accelerated away from Beardsley and Reid. This was the real Diego - he burst through Butcher and attacked Fenwick. Fenwick now had the opportunity to stop the attack. Normally, he would have aimed his boot somewhere near Maradona's thigh - sure he would have picked up a red card, but who cares? Then Fenwick had a brainwave - he hesitated, and decided to run at Maradona waving his arms - perhaps he was trying to put him off? Diego shot into the box as Fenwick fell over. Butcher had been running alongside the genius as if he was offering encouragement. Shilton charged out in panic, and Maradona twisted around him and prepared to score. Now Butcher remembered his role and tried to cripple the Argentinean - instead he gave extra impetus to the shot, which smashed into the goal. England were coming home.During this magical Mexican summer, the world had found a successor for Pele. In fact the greatest ever footballer had been surpassed - Pele had been superb in 1958 and 1970, but had had great players all around him. Maradona did not. 1986 was his World Cup. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c552e2b4ca224d9a9c3175c3535aa93e", "input": "Review: Steven Spielberg wanted to win an Oscar so bad that he figured that he wouldn't win by directing special effects epics (he was nominated for three of them: \"Close Encounters of the Third Kind\", \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\", and \"E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial\". So he decided to get very serious by directing \"The Color Purple\", a period film with no special effects. Spielberg's first serious drama is a remarkable movie. But the Academy voters who voted back in 1985 still didn't give Spielberg any respect. \"The Color Purple\" received 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but Spielberg was unfairly snubbed when he wasn't nominated for Best Director. It got worse on Oscar night when this film didn't win a single Oscar. It got completely shut out. That wasn't right. \"The Color Purple\" should have won a couple of Oscars including one for Whoopi Goldberg's spectacular film debut as Celie, a woman who suffers at the hands of an abusive husband (frightfully placed by Danny Glover), then gets stronger throughout the film thanks to some special friends. Oprah Winfrey also made her film debut here and gives a great performance as Sofia, one of those friends' of Celie. Since I'm from Chicago, I had already known Winfrey from her talk show (which at the time of this films' release hadn't gone nationwide). Like Goldberg, what a film debut! Margaret Avery is terrific as Shug Avery, another friend who also happens to be the mistress of Celie's rotten husband. All three actresses received well-deserved Oscar nominations for their work here (Goldberg for Best Actress; Winfrey and Avery for Best Supporting Actress). Set in the south during the first half of the 20th Century, \"The Color Purple\" is a film so strong that it made me cry at the end. It also made me laugh at times too. Why Academy voters were so hard on not nominating Spielberg for Best Director is a mystery that still puzzles me today. But Spielberg would eventully go on to win two Oscars years later for \"Schindler's List\" and \"Saving Private Ryan\", making him one of the best movie directors of all-time. But he should have gotten nominated for this movie. The job that he did going from special effects blockbusters like \"E.T.\" to a serious drama like \"The Color Purple\" was remarkable.**** (out of four) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67348aa6fb9a4fb8bef947eeb1c61a0d", "input": "Review: It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0029c5469b49434caf290f4c67ce69a3", "input": "Review: The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a2565f2de2a4a24b2ddcd3332f040a2", "input": "Review: This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a938dcf6c0d41c387c0739aeb37b90b", "input": "Review: Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more. So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-18aef6c66a5b4b0aa025809c82588d1d", "input": "Review: Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c38e5dacda1945bd8e24b1a760f3dc22", "input": "Review: SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a \"lesbian scene\" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!I heard rumors of a sequel.GodHelpUsAll Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1934e21e48e6476f817c8c4bf0a2fc91", "input": "Review: do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c03c84f94c394e6b9cf6bc4c9441fce7", "input": "Review: Has to be one of the worst wastes of 35mm movie film ever unleashed on the public, the sequel to the at least entertaining pseudo-documentary original film \"The Legend of Boggy Creek\". Bad script, worse acting, etc., etc., Dawn Wells had to be hoping that Gilligan would come rescue her and take her back to the island just to escape from this piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68f40d6f14f34412b30312595acd4e32", "input": "Review: This is such a fantastic movie, a Western about a self-concerned man (Jimmy Stewart) going up to the Klondike for gold. On the way, he gets hassled by a local sheriff in Alaska (John McIntire, giving a wonderfully evil performance), whom he hassles back. McIntire threatens that he'll be a dead man if he ever comes back through his town, which is, unfortunately, the only way back to the States. The main chunk of the story is about the peaceful Klondike town of Dawson being turned upside down by new residents from McIntire's town. Ruth Roman, for instance, who has come with Stewart and his two companions (Jay C. Flippen and Walter Brennen, who plays Stewart's best friend), builds a saloon (a Hollywood front for a whorehouse) and tries to run the town's restaurant and hang-out place out of business. She paves the way for McIntire and his goons to come up, too. In 1953, Jimmy Stewart and director Anthony Mann made one of the peaks of the Western genre, The Naked Spur. The Far Country is just the tiniest bit less, and it contains 99.9% of what made that film so special without, of course, feeling like a cheap copy. Like The Naked Spur, The Far Country boasts beautiful, on-location cinematography. The landscape is gorgeous. Stewart gives one of his best performances (nearly equal to his biggest success of 1954, Rear Window). I suppose it could be considered cliche, as he starts out a selfish loner and learns how that kind of existence plays out in the end. Still, Stewart plays it so damn well, he makes this character very human. And the supporting performances are universally fantastic. In addition to those I've mentioned, the adorable French actress Corinne Calvet is very good. And I ought to single out Walter Brennen, as well. He seems to have specialized in playing best friends. His relationship with Stewart is very touching, since he is, at first, the only character who is able to bring out any humanity in the cynical man. The screenplay is very well written, and Mann's direction is impeccable. A masterpiece. 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5945c086c5a24384914411f8587cfdd3", "input": "Review: Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcb989a60e8a4f98bd0427872094754d", "input": "Review: Yes, this gets the full ten stars. It's plain as day that this fill is genius. The universe sent Trent Harris a young, wonderfully strange man one day and Harris caught him on tape, in all that true misfit glory that you just can't fake. Too bad it ended in tragedy for the young man, if only an alternate ending could be written for that fellow's story. The other two steps in the trilogy do retell the story, with Sean Penn and Crispin Glover in the roles of the young men, respectively. The world is expanded upon and the strangeness is contextualized by the retelling, giving us a broader glimpse into growing up weird in vanilla America. Recommended for anyone and everyone! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf7e49485ae846578f5e53bc139ba078", "input": "Review: Hot Millions is a great movie in every way. A fun, offbeat story with wonderful performances by four of the best professionals ever to work in the business. Peter Ustinov is brilliant, as usual, and Maggie Smith---definitely one of the greatest actresses of all time--- is a total delight. Karl Malden and Bob Newhart round out the cast and are also perfect. If you want a movie that has perfect casting, this is it. What is so impressive is the way these people work off each other in such a natural and effortless way, creating lots of laughs and fun moments throughout. Peter Ustinov was a genius with a wonderful sense of humor and this is one of his most memorable performances. The direction, photography, and editing are also first-rate, and it's a great time capsule of London in the '60s. It's definitely on my all-time favorites list. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7514874e21ee4f128938aacf4ff2fb9c", "input": "Review: Belmondo is a tough cop. He goes after a big-time drug dealer (played by Henry Silva, normally a great villain - see \"Sharky's Machine\"; but here he is clearly dubbed, and because of that he lacks his usual charisma). He goes to the scuzziest places of Paris and Marseilles, asks for some names, beats up some people, gets the names, goes to more scuzzy places, asks for more names, beats up more people, etc. The whole movie is punch after punch after punch. It seems that the people who made it had no other ambition than to create the French equivalent of \"Dirty Harry\". Belmondo, who was 50 here, does perform some good stunts at the beginning; apart from those, \"Le Marginal\" is a violent, episodic, trite, shallow and forgettable cop movie. (*1/2) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e07fabe82e7740cda1feb73e26fb491a", "input": "Review: This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51ea742ac6da46cf9aa3b86ba723916f", "input": "Review: I would almost give it 10 out of 10. However, there are some confusing parts as well as sections that are miss-leading which hurt the flow/continuity of the film. The story line is great and well composed; you will definitely want to watch this quietly to fully understand it. The characters are complicated and so is the story line, expect to be given only enough information to stop scratching your head, it's a film where all is explained in the end. The animation is great and the combination of femme fatal and film noir result in a great film that is unlike anything else I've seen in animation. It is a black and white film and its quiet dark in a few scenes so it's worth watching it on a good T.V, or plasma. The character voices do save this film in its English version, but it would have been more convincing if there were some French accents to emphasize that its happening Paris, I enjoyed it more in French with English subtitles. One the whole its well worth buying on DVD or BlueRay if they have it! And personally if you enjoyed this film you might also like; Waking Life & Ghost in a Shell 2 Innocence, this is just a personal suggestion. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9916484a8644d1dab6f5138c0d1624a", "input": "Review: I agree with \"Jerry.\" It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not \"rip-off\") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his \"mind\", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-57a35f5825194365ab6ffe2ba467f154", "input": "Review: In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the \"basis\" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, \"Our Leading Citizen,\" in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than \"Jack London\"! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10eb119f142a4e91b2b5a2fe46e8d883", "input": "Review: This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-671adaba913c41f6aca233a293c1a2c7", "input": "Review: I believe this is the most powerful film HBO Pictures has made to date. This film should have been released in theaters for the public to view on the big screen. It is available on video so make sure you look for it and check it out. Chris Gerolmo did a great job with the direction and the screenplay. The performances from Stephen Rea, Donald Sutherland and Jeffery DeMunn are flawless. A masterpiece of the genre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-918b468b7bbe4d63b23fa0e72774cebf", "input": "Review: Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a58b9453e0c64927ad17b6c12196161b", "input": "Review: Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-232db5796de342c4b5875610dd2ae199", "input": "Review: \"Intensive Care\" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage.\"Intensive Care\" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including \"Halloween\" and \"Friday the 13th\" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d38ef273fdc46b9900c734c014a643d", "input": "Review: \"El Mar\" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.\"El Mar\" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb2821e851084cec95e7d5cd073c4fbb", "input": "Review: I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0aef5b61d2fa428c8d6dc16efdbf84bd", "input": "Review: Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand (\"Wuthering Heights,\" \"Ice Station Zebra,\" \"The Thomas Crowne Affair\"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed \"The Young Girls of Rochefort,\" though I most certainly did not. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a4a864a0d7442b9875da37531c74611", "input": "Review: Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78cbfec46b6b46e09e3c7c4c44cf807f", "input": "Review: Every great gangster movie has under-currents of human drama. Don't expect an emotional story of guilt, retribution and despair from \"Scarface\". This is a tale of ferocious greed, corruption, and power. The darker side of the fabled \"American Dream\".Anybody complaining about the \"cheesiness\" of this film is missing the point. The superficial characters, cheesy music, and dated fashions further fuel the criticism of this life of diabolical excess. Nothing in the lives of these characters really matter, not on any human level at least. In fact the film practically borderlines satire, ironic considering all the gangsta rappers that were positively inspired by the lifestyle of Tony Montana.This isn't Brian DePalma's strongest directorial effort, it is occasionally excellent and well-handled (particularly the memorable finale), but frequently sinks to sloppy and misled. Thankfully, it is supported by a very strong script by Oliver Stone (probably good therapy for him, considering the coke habit he was tackling at the time). The themes are consistent, with the focus primarily on the life of Tony Montana, and the evolution of his character as he is consumed by greed and power. The dialogue is also excellent, see-sawing comfortably between humour and drama. There are many stand-out lines, which have since wormed their way into popular culture in one form or another.The cast help make it what it is as well, but this is really Pacino's film. One of his earlier less subtle performances (something much more common from him nowadays), this is a world entirely separate from Michael Corleone and Frank Serpico. Yet he is as watchable here as ever, in very entertaining (and intentionally over-the-top) form. It is hard to imagine another Tony Montana after seeing this film, in possibly one of the most mimicked performances ever. Pfeiffer stood out as dull and uncomfortable on first viewing, but I've come to realize how she plays out the part of the bored little wife. Not an exceptional effort, but unfairly misjudged. The supporting players are very good too, particularly Paul Shenar as the suave Alejandro Sosa.Powerful, occasionally humorous, sometimes shocking, and continually controversial. \"Scarface\" is one of the films of the eighties (whatever that might mean to you). An essential and accessible gangster flick, and a pop-culture landmark. 9/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00e14347da1b40098b7403c4de1dd4e4", "input": "Review: this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7dd6c6afb9b45958d332fd3f0f4aabd", "input": "Review: As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the \"original\", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilizes the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1cc96512c70479b8e9f10b9239ee5b4", "input": "Review: It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the \"Radioactive Slime Delight,\" in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his \"dilly dick\" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, \"That was a great movie.\" Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20abd85215d346b9a0ecbc2907c949d5", "input": "Review: POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-80b0dc40fd5e46009799cc67bf5500ed", "input": "Review: I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking \"Buster, how could you?!\". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b36dd2fa7e7441ec96246c162c8ac919", "input": "Review: The Fallen Ones starts with archaeologist Matt Fletcher (Casper Van Dien) in the desert discovering the mummified remains of a 42 foot tall giant, now there's something you don't see everyday. Matt is working for property developer Morton (Robert Wagner) who wants to build a holiday resort on the land & he calls in fellow archaeologist Angela (Kristen Miller) for reasons I'm unsure of. Anyway they both try to figure out what they've got on they're hands when some of the team go missing, Morton calls in security guy Ammon (Navid Negahban) to handle the situation. Meanwhile ancient text translator the Rabbi Eli Schmidtt (Tom Bosley) translates some ancient text (as he would) & is shocked to learn of a evil prophecy in which these giants will rise up & take over the world for the Fallen One, or something like that. It's up to Matt to save the day & the whole planet...Written & directed by Kevin VanHook, who also has a small role in the film as the ancient warrior leader at the start, I personally thought The Fallen Ones was a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are so many things that are just plain bad about The Fallen Ones both on a technical & conceptual level, the script doesn't make a whole lot of sense & it doesn't really get going until the final 20 odd minutes by which time I had almost lost the will to live. The character's are awful & as clichéd as you like, the dialogue is bad as in very, very bad & the entire film is predictable, I mean it's not going to come as a surprise that Casper Van Dien is going to save the day is it? It's not a huge surprise that the mummified giant is going to come back to life either so why wait until over an hour into the film when most of the audience will be in some sort of comatose state. This is bad, very bad. You have been warned.Director VanHook doesn't impress, the fight scenes are absolutely awful & why dress your bad guys up in a horrible shade of purple? They look naff. To give it a bit of credit the special effects on the giant Mummy itself are actually good although there's not that many of them since he doesn't make an appearance for over an hour, there are also some normal sized Mummy's that look to have come straight from the set of The Mummy (1999), unfortunately these aren't used to any great effect & in fact are wasted as some comic relief. The mechanical Mummy was a pretty good idea but looked silly & there is no way on Earth that all those people inside could work in sync with each other to operate it, actually the more I think about the more ridiculous the idea is. Forget about any scares, tension or atmosphere & don't even think about any gore or violence because there isn't any.Technically The Fallen Ones isn't anything special & apart from the impressive giant Mummy effects there's little her to get excited about. The ghost CGI & water effects are terrible, it was made-for-TV & it's shows. The acting was poor, Wagner looks embarrassed & this is probably the only thing the likes of Dien & Bosley can get these days.The Fallen Ones is a bad film, there's no two ways about it as far as I'm concerned. Not recommended on any level or in any way, one to avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d933fe9c6564f08a617aaac8f8bf9ad", "input": "Review: It may have not been up for academy awards and admittedly, it's pretty cheesy, but it's just so much fun! Nothing makes me smile like Bill and Ted. Lovable, optimistic, and hilarious, Bill and Ted are a great way to unwind.Although I love Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey is funnier to me. Death is flippin hilarious and Bill and Ted are even more endearing. People give me grief about loving this movie, but only really pretentious movie-watchers will say it's not even a bit entertaining. If you like this, you'll probably also be a fan of Wayne's World, Dude Where's My Car, and Dumb and Dumber. Admit it, though foolish, they make you grin and turn your tickle box over. So watch them just for kicks and giggles!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58c012a6f1ec48f1b240418a723c20c6", "input": "Review: \"Kolchak: the Night Stalker\" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead? That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.I'll address the question of Kolchak being \"formula\" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include: Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the \"Omen\" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.) Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!) On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on \"Buffy.\" McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70cb1669eba74208b4304cf0eb252270", "input": "Review: Wow, here it finally is; the action \"movie\" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly \"Matrix\" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88e0ff6cd3bc4c208ab2fe5212e300c4", "input": "Review: Let me being by saying the I followed watching this video by watching Saw and after Bleed, Saw looked like the all time greatest horror flick ever even though I thought it was only fairly good. Bleed is pretty bad. The best part is seeing the female cast nude. The gore is very fake looking and over-done. It has its funny parts but its extremely predictable and I didn't want to stay to see the horrible ending. If I could, I would ban these actors and actresses, the only reason being is that Debbie Rochon (Maddy) has been in over a hundred other videos and I've also seen two other members of the cast in equally or worse motion pictures. They should not allowed to continue this madness. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a39c705e66a4b92b29abd5a6e684007", "input": "Review: 'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be536432ee7e4075a07ddc7425f227d2", "input": "Review: This is by far one of my favorite of the American Pie Spin offs mainly because in most of the others the main character (one of the young Stiflers) always seems unrealistic in nature. For example AP: The Naked Mile. You have a teenage guy surrounded by naked college chicks , and has one in particular hot on his trail to rid him of his virginity \"problem\" and he ends up stopping mid-deed and rides a horse back to sleep with his girlfriend, who keep in mind gave him a \"guilt free pass\" for the weekend. I can appreciate the romantic aspect of the whole thing but let's be realistic; most people who are watching these movies aren't particularly searching for a romantic story.Whereas the most recent installment finally seems to realize who the audience is and good old Erik Stifler seems to wake up and smell the roses and as always Mr. Levenstein lends his \"perfectly natural\" eyebrow humor to the equation and scored a touchdown with this new movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40a8353f7853429e863edf2294d7aafa", "input": "Review: Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbbae7419e64443091cbc01f0711df53", "input": "Review: I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e40715ee937646e29a7b43d448330e32", "input": "Review: I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing \"contestant\" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is \"doing good\", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0c7fff3d7384f45b382e86ffd6e6008", "input": "Review: I liked the initial premise to this film which is what led me to hunt it out but the problem I quickly found is that one pretty much knows what's going to happen within the first 20-30 minutes ( the doubles will come from behind the mirror and take over everybody).There is no real twist (which is fine) , but the final reveal doesn't make a great deal of sense either (how can she be racked with uncertainty and fear for the whole film, if she's an evil id from beyond the mirror?).Admittedly the scenes 'beyond the mirror' were chilling when they first appeared and the blonde's murder is also effectively creepy, but ultimately alas this seems to be a film in search of a story or a more engaging script, piling atmosphere upon atmosphere and over the top scary sound design for 80-90 minutes does not really cut it, in fact it gets quite dull. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f1a88b191504c25ab4f894ea6ca8111", "input": "Review: Director/star Clint Eastwood's \"Sudden Impact\" is an intriguing addition to the \"Dirty Harry\" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up \"Make my day\" scene recalls the \"Do you feel lucky\" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This \"incompatibility\" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, \"What about the victim's rights?\" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable \"Magnum Force\") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that \"Sudden Impact\" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the \"Dirty Harry\" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock \"The Dead Pool\" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted \"Go ahead, make my day.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2393580f739e4a00974d5c9e311c3ccc", "input": "Review: This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by \"ground-breaking\" and \"original\" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the \"Bill Cosby Show\" or \"Hill Street Blues\" it's original. Definitely. Next to \"Law & Order\" TP spews originality left and right.Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed \"weirdness\", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...Whenever I watch the \"weird dream\" sequence in \"Living In Oblivion\" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? \"Eraserhead\" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch \"The Prisoner\". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for \"unique faces\" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced \"hunks\" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a \"weird show with weird-looking people\". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable \"eccentricities\" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-\"Elephant Man\" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this \"great mind\" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story. Check out my \"TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism\" list. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-02d0a4e1c9b14a09b5d0dfb4be0e9597", "input": "Review: What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! \"Revenge is a two way street\" seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-972d6959c08d453d8790b058b6c057c1", "input": "Review: The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.Avoid this one at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-625d919adb8a4568b4dfc2d2f72d8831", "input": "Review: What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, \"Friends\" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things – and about a porn actor – she fits in perfectly. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6636fba839046808c91f4b2737a0824", "input": "Review: Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d662c4ee746b4980b2f0073b0a4a2195", "input": "Review: This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or \"enhance\", the more slobbery they get. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dc3da98337f414cb9e5dab2c7c4b260", "input": "Review: I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1748ec6ecd5e4b15a4d80e32d850280c", "input": "Review: Watching the commercials for this movie, I was fairly convinced that I was going to loathe it. For one thing, it was one of those \"loosely based on the novel\" movies, which usually means that the book author saw the script, hated it, and refused to be associated with the film. Worse, the trailer showed only the most mundane slapstick imaginable (ex: kid gets squirted in the face with a garden hose...and falls over). So when my little brother got it into his mind that this was the \"must see\" film of the season (of course, he thought the same thing about \"Cars\", \"Over the Hedge\", \"The Ant Bully\", \"Monster House\", etc, etc), I was admittedly less than thrilled.But once at the theater, the film won me over for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the writers capture 'kid dialogue' better than just about any other children's film I've ever seen. A prime example of this comes directly after the boys' principal accidentally eats a worm stuck in an egg omelet. The boys do a lame, over-exaggerated impression of the principal lecturing them, which makes it realistic since all little kids think (mistakenly) that they do great mocking expressions of their adult tormentors. Then one of the boys asks, \"Why did he say, 'alley oop'?\" Another boy responds, \"Maybe he's crazy!\" and the entire group laughs uproariously. Not an overly witty rejoinder, but exactly the kind of thing a young kid would come up with on the spot and exactly the type of remark other kids his age would find hilarious. As if to confirm it, my kid brother laughed right on cue when they were spoken on-screen; I could practically hear his voice spouting the same exact lines if he was placed in a similar situation.Another reason the movie works is that the writers manage to work in issues like bullying, sibling relationships, the new kid in school, and peer pressure/conformity without making any of them seem as though they were subplots for some after school special. For example, the bully (Joe) isn't stereotypical; he's definitely bad but not pure evil, and just enough of his home-life is revealed that the audience feels sympathy for him and understands his bullying origins. There's also no \"cue the dramatic music\" moment where Billy ('Worm Boy') realizes what a complete tool he's being to his younger brother Woody, and yet, by the end of the movie, some type of minor transformation has been made. There's some realism here in the way the characters resolve situations and in the way they relate to each other, and very little of it comes across as corny.The only drawback to the movie comes in the form of an absolutely laughable dance scene that even the creators of the infamous McDonald's dance party in \"Mac and Me\" would scoff at. Why oh why was it put into the movie?? Did Austin Rogers (Adam) pull a Macaulay Culkin and refuse to take the role unless he was given a vehicle to showcase his oh so impressive dancing skills? The entire sequence definitely did not need to be there and had slightly less comedic value than any given show on \"The History Channel\".Overall, though, this movie was excellent, and the length (about an hour and twenty minutes) was just about perfect. One of the best, most realistic live action kid films you'll ever see if you're ever around children or just remember what being a kid was actually like. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6e5d3b4c9fa4a70bdd0c7333d4aee37", "input": "Review: The Return is one of those movies for that niche group of people who like movies that bore and confuse them at the same time. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a lame buisnesswoman who does not kill vampires or get naked at all throughout the movie. I was willing to put up with this, however I was not willing to put up with the worst editing ever combined with pointless flashbacks. At the end it turns out she crashes her car into herself when she was young. Or maybe I'm wrong and that was just a flashback. With this movie it's impossible to tell. Can you believe the same dude who made Army of Darkness produced this crap? A much better idea is to stay at home and watch Army of Darkness on Sci Fi channel. That movie had it all: sluts, zombies and a dude with a chainsaw for an arm. The Forgotten didn't even have one of these things. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19d1ca0c92ac4fb991c5591906efd508", "input": "Review: This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0af247c74e934d1eab646b93d3c2027e", "input": "Review: From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in. Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault. At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit. Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer. I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen. However \"Baretta's Island\" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it! The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is. As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun. But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c03de6f57f32494da0fd7468387d6d11", "input": "Review: Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of \"random chance\" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use \"ample\" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing \"melodrama\". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of \"ifs, ands, and buts\". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.Grade: * out of ***** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c2ac575d1ab4496b3e6c2b16938b3df", "input": "Review: There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4d9831ee3cb496c975fef6699c76adc", "input": "Review: This movie is to Halloween what the hilarious \"Christmas Story\" is to Christmas: both are relatively low-budget, no-big-name-stars type films...and both are two of the absolute greatest and funniest movies available, both seasonal CLASSICS!!! \"Spaced Invaders\" comes galloping out right from the start with warmth and humor and a superb cast of characters...all five goofy Martians, Klembecker the Realtor, Russell the deputy, Vern at the \"fuel dispensing depot\" and so many more! You just have to see this movie to believe it, and, like \"Christmas Story\", it just keeps getting better and better with each viewing, and you pick up on fun little things each time!! MOST DEFINITELY A TEN!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7f2e3dc68114e4a84bce73fe97394bd", "input": "Review: Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about \"zombies\" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The \"zombies\" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.The film is set during World War I. A \"French Cambodian\" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to \"wipe out the white race\".One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean \"will to power\"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusing—Halperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e7dec99cbee40da929b94029b4d9137", "input": "Review: Since I watched it for the first time, \"Piedras\" is a personal favorite and one of the few pictures I actually could watch over and over again. The great screenplay depicts the lives of a bunch of women (all of them somehow interconnected) with deep understanding and sensibility. Ramón Salazar achieved a compelling film in his directorial debut, and proves himself as an efficient actors' director. Not that all performances are excellent, though. Of all leading ladies, they range from average (Najwa Nimri) to very good (Vicky Peña), but the standing ovation should be directed to newcomer Mónica Cervera, who convincingly plays Antonia San Juan's retarded daughter. Enrique Alcides is irresistibly charming as the girl's male nurse, and there are nice small turns from Andrés Gertrúdix, Geli Albaladejo and the director himself, Ramón Salazar.\"Piedras\" is beautifully written and filmed, when I watched it I got so moved that I couldn't stop thinking of it for days. I highly recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e5f5d42218a488d830e250bf94c3805", "input": "Review: A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-57ca117ebfbf48f39cb13eed0e2e44f6", "input": "Review: There is no doubt that Halloween is by far one of the best films ever not only in its genre but also outside.I love the films creepy atmosphere like the whole it could happen here sort of situation makes it scary to think about.Also to imagine if you were ever in this situation what would you do.This is a movie that i enjoy watching highly, especially around Halloween time.John Carpenter is a very professional directer i love a lot of his other films, but there is no doubt that his best known movie is the film Halloween.Oh and if your thinking about watching the Rob Zombie remake don't.It is pure crap and a true Halloween fan would like the 1978 John Carpenter version better.Michael Myers is one of the coolest slasher killers in any film, and is a very well known one.So by all means go see this masterpiece you will really like it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee1290f4ed6b4635ab4f602429102fa5", "input": "Review: I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with \"Einstein\" playing \"Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star\" on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is \"only a grease monkey\" is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb7318a7efca44118f9dfb9c60fe9004", "input": "Review: If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45ba6af8c15b413e8b946a5b9a95f087", "input": "Review: I'm surprised how many people give this move less than 7 stars.But they just don't understand the movie.The story is about growing up in a difficult situation.There is a crazy grandmother who really wants the best for your grandchildren.And there's good reason why so many critics like this movie.And the reason is because they understand the movie.I feel sorry for the low scores given by some people.I wish I could just write a brief summary of a movie but IMDb requires you to write 10 lines.I frankly don't have anything else to say. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef4d56c3f35a46339a55ccf9619e5b9e", "input": "Review: OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-49bc31ec5759474badcd9dbe73b5ce4d", "input": "Review: This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making \"Loaded\". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.That being said, I love a good \"bad\" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are \"bad\".But this.......this crosses the line of \"bad\" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.Every cheesy editing \"effect\" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the \"shaky\" camera \"drug buzz rush\" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f97bc377e6ff4ca781b79dffa2c9a28f", "input": "Review: fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c18549e125e043088ba2f23fb5f58070", "input": "Review: Who would've imagined -- Hal Hartley creates a filmic corollary to Syriana while retaining his signature idiosyncratic style. The fusion is highly entertaining.Having not seen a Hal Hartley film for about a decade, I approached this one with some caution. His brilliant productions of the nineties had impressed critics and audiences with their unique style and dialog. The director's earlier films featured colorful characters and offered close observations of life -- often in the region of Long Island, New York or in New York City itself -- that were offbeat and insightful.My initial caution stemmed from the description of this movie as a \"spy thriller\". To my pleasant surprise, Hartley manages to mesh his well established style and focus to produce a highly original drama of international intrigue. It works in more ways than one might imagine. Hartley's film retains the dialog and character focus that are his trademarks, along with a singular cinematographic style.Moreover it is highly appropriate given the current situation in the world and the state of war that has been fostered by dark elements on all sides. Hartley has brought all his skills to something new -- a political film worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Syriana. Truly he is coming into his own. The cast does a fine job of interpreting Hartley's vision and style. Fans of Parker Posey will see her in full bloom here, still with us and more ripe and gorgeous than before. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d8be107392142d6b8a850258f7bf7bf", "input": "Review: be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these \"jokes\" were just silly.This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-012a061c3e3d4759a80e184bfacbc74c", "input": "Review: Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in \"Down To Earth.\" As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of \"American Pie\" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy \"Heaven Can Wait,\" itself a rehash of 1941's \"Here Comes Mr. Jordan,\" lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in \"Lethal Weapon 4,\" \"Dogma,\" or \"Nurse Betty\" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, \"Down To Earth\" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.\"Down to Earth\" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face \"American Pie.\" This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent cast—among them \"The Full Monty's\" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This,\" \"SCTV's\" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.—are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, \"Down To Earth\" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of \"Hannibal\") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of \"Jerry Maguire\"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of \"Stay Tuned\"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of \"Analyze This\"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of \"American Pie\") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of \"Sweet November\") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.\"Down To Earth\" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of \"Heaven Can Wait.\" The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of \"Heaven Can Wait\" based on his philosophy to \"Do Something you can only do when you're hot.\" Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in \"Down to Earth,\" Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with \"Down to Earth\" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of \"Down to Earth\" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0a682426e71420282c5a5be27c4a9a5", "input": "Review: Yes, I am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was lame!!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2b93186633143c9b7c22e18c363a941", "input": "Review: We've been served - a terrible film.Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the \"competitive world of step-dancing,\" I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.And, boy, have I just seen it.Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, (\"A Touch of Pink\"), \"How She Move\" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.I'll try to give a small synopsis of the \"plot.\" First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. There are a few other guys in this \"crew,\" including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in \"Malcolm X.\" There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old \"Flip Wilson Show.\" One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big \"Step Monster\" jam in Detroit.Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like \"Rocky\" with a really bad soundtrack, \"Rudy\" with annoying rap music in the background, \"Cry Freedom\" without the laughs. But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, \"How she moves\"?I was \"moved\" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9b5e0369e1b48dca59ac2c3acb09d0e", "input": "Review: It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a \"sit back with a few beers\" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of \"American Ninja\" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called \"White Phantom\" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers\" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2881045861bc4ed1b13fd8ea2a933a3f", "input": "Review: Although this movie has some weaknesses, it is worth seeing. I chose it because of the cast, and applaud Bonham Carter and Branagh for choosing roles different from those they have taken in the past. Both portray very troubled people, complete with warts, but make them likeable because of their humanity. The story is touching, but it is the performances that soar. Bonham Carter's \"Jane\" is a remarkable achievement, whose quest for romance opened my eyes to aspects of being disabled that I had not thought of before, but was interesting as well for other reasons. I felt the movie ended too abruptly, but better that than a drawn out emotionally manipulative ending (see \"Stepmom.\") The very real English setting added to my enjoyment - it was England in the 90's, both urban and rural, without being depressing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5692f8287ee94b808466260f278c0042", "input": "Review: Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing \"world music\" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with \"baskets on their heads\" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for \"life in transformation.\"But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.RstJ Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee3cf0b382e040448ea3e9ef00b2fe49", "input": "Review: Based on an actual mining disaster, this early German talkie (with English subtitles) still remains one of the most effective docu-dramas ever filmed. Featuring many non-professional actors, \"Kameradschaft\" gives a chilling view of the friendship that binds the mine workers, regardless of which side of the French/German border they may be from. A deadly accident brings out the very best in everyone, nullifying any superiors' orders. A fellow miner in need will receive the help of his comrades, even at threat of great loss, including life.This film reminds of the self-sacrificing heroism shown by the NYFD following the 9/11 attacks. Putting aside any formal rules and regulations, these men and women in uniform knew only one cause: to save lives, and to find their fellow-fire fighters. -- More than 70 years later, \"Kameradschaft\" still has the strong and timeless message: A friend in need is a friend in deed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c7958bdafdea4e80b3cfae41a3ecc0d2", "input": "Review: The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1772e2817f84f8eb1971cb9702266c7", "input": "Review: Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to \"Alive\" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).The very end, however, is quote lame. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bbd8070d79942e197514a42d0e83afe", "input": "Review: The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fda3716d782c4f5eb45989ae1c430152", "input": "Review: An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11cf311e3ad7451991e072a0839624eb", "input": "Review: There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bb305df22924c708738f94f9940dff2", "input": "Review: - A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't \"real\". These scares just don't work.- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these \"actors\" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? - I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50e02d5ca4fc41faae9bf79448b00f48", "input": "Review: This is certainly one of my all time fav episodes of Trek. There is just so much going on in this one film that its crazy cool. First the guys beam down to an alien planet thats about to explode. They meet a freaky librarian type dude (very well played). Then Kirk manages to get himself transported back to what is very much like 16th century earth. McCoy and Spock try to follow but instead nearly freeze to death on the frozen version of the alien world 100,000 years in the past. Kirk manages to get himself locked up and charged with witchcraft while Spock enjoys some amok time with a sexy cavegirl who was vanquished to the this frozen, awful world by some bad guy.Spock decides hes happy where hes at and gives McCoy a royal assestment whuppin' when the doc suggests they need to look for a way out. Anyhow,they all finally escape, leaving the poor cavegirl behind. It takes a ton of convincing before Spock finally gives in and leaves. You can literally taste the sadness at the end. Leaving the cavegirl all alone in her frozen wasteland just seems cruel and is really touching. Spock must have been out of his vulkin' mind to leave behind his greatest hope for love and being human. Albeit, in a not so nice neighborhood!Anyway, you just get so much bang for your buck with this episode....A love story, the Salem witch trials, Spock as a human, the desperation of being left in total isolation...abandoned, and three entirely different settings on the alien planet. Its amazing they managed to jam all this into one fifty minute film. This one is a classic, don't miss it....I want it on DVD fer shure vulcans!!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9ebb8f330dd4dd186ab097eadec4bdc", "input": "Review: This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40f7cc2288ae47d799f809224432a1ac", "input": "Review: I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the \"posession\" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f98245e8e0654f31908859c440b0a178", "input": "Review: As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d64b568597d8426884d27f7a09cc9d27", "input": "Review: Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on \"...of the living dead\" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch. We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together. Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined \"Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film.\" Jordan replied, \"No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result.\" Oh.)A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit. Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation! Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises. Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan. Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-523a678cce5a435294997a445b18ad09", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as \"Glory\" or \"Gettysburg,\" provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George \"Fanny\" or \"Autie\" Custer; Alonzo \"Lon\" Cushing; James \"Beauty\" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.I say this film is \"Santa Fe Trail\" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).\"Fanny\" Custer plays a role in \"Class of '61,\" though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-080eb37f47c44bc5865ea2b945664a3e", "input": "Review: This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-588939ae524340c1800e8342d0a6cb12", "input": "Review: OK, first of all, ignore the last person' review. They admit to falling asleep through it so it's no wonder they didn't understand what was going on!!! As thriller/horrors go, this film ain't too bad, it is certainly very watchable. Right from the opening scenes you get a general idea exactly what is going to be the cause of all the craziness that follows, and come the end you are proved right with everything being made clear.I enjoyed this movie, it was quite eerie at times and as old films go it was passable. Great to watch late at night! I give it a generous 7 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d72a846d98784cc2ae71f9ed9ce90423", "input": "Review: A super comedy series from the 1990s (Two series were made in total) that suffered in the UK ratings due to poor scheduling. When you are up against established comedies like 'Minder', even the best new comedies are going to struggle to get noticed.Luckily, I caught the series from episode one and followed it avidly. I mentioned it to friends and family at the time, but everyone seemed to have been watching something else. Very, very frustrating.Anyway, I loved both series and never forgot it.Then I looked it up on the internet and found that an ultra-fan was trying to get both series released 'on his own'.Well, both series are now available on DVD. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-80e8548198b64a7687e6875369a19c31", "input": "Review: I don't know what the previous reviewer was watching but I guess that's what reviews are, personal taste. Missed in this movie was the depth, a very deep film, many layers of emotion, affecting. Undercurrents of withheld love because of submission to societal beliefs, taboos of the times and classes, race relations not being in a very good state of equality, guilt, yearning, hate, confusion, very dark emotionally I thought, under the skin, you have to submit to the aire of it, a flowing movie, not slow as stated before, release yourself to the flow of the film, the emotions will show themselves, characters reveal their flaws, their nasty insides, excellent and actually very cruel! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d360c50591364d3194bb8aea355cf231", "input": "Review: OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f35b226d4cfb43ff8c3d10014a8c508d", "input": "Review: Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from \"Knife In the Water\" up till \"The Tenant\", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own \"Repulsion\" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. \"The Tenant\" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. \"The Tenant\" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both \"Repulsion\" and \"Rosemary's Baby\", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1943e17a05804c7caff3791cc436cc59", "input": "Review: A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say \"Freddy Got Fingered\" or \"Lost Reality\", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.My Grade: D Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a901a70fae7a46dea0615b1dcad105e2", "input": "Review: Watched this as a late TV movie last night purely by chance. The blurb for the film said something to the effect of mother stays with daughter and goes on romantic journey, as I tuned in there's the carpenter hard at work on a new conservatory - played by Daniel Craig no less - so the plot was immediately apparent.It turns out that eponymous mother's carpenter love interest is also the daughter's boyfriend, so there's trouble brewing and not too many surprises. But I'd been caught by Anne Reid's compelling performance and I was hooked. The direction allows her plenty of space for staring into mirrors and adjusting scarves, when she exudes sadness.The sex scenes were fascinating and taboo-breaking. Shouldn't older women's bodies remain covered up? Not here and we're treated to a delicious reawakening in the Mother's sexuality. Even more startling are the drawings she's made that (SPOILER!) once discovered confirm her daughter's suspicion that something's going on here.Cathryn Bradshaw as the daughter didn't convince me quite as much as the rest of the cast, but that could be me. With her waves of pre-Raph locks I kept expecting to see Julia Sawahla, whose more intense face would have suited the confrontations better to my mind. Bradshaw has a rounder happier face that didn't carry the anger that emerges as the film progresses.The ending is weak. If the goodbyes for Mother as she leaves in disgrace are so indifferent then perhaps we could see some close-ups of those waving goodbye and see something of their individual reasons. Whatever she's done, she's a recently bereaved widow leaving for the lonely home she shared with her husband for 30 years, and I found the lack of sympathy jarring. For a film so full of emotion (and be warned it's like opening champagne, you'll never get the lid back on) the ending is a cold contradiction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c99d724f4d64380aa4efa6f03ef6fc2", "input": "Review: \"8 SIMPLE RULES... FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER,\" is my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that James Garner and David Spade were good, I liked the show more when John Ritter was the leading man. If you ask me, his sudden passing was very tragic. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope some network brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-134cfc137b7a4bcf8d465f8508140064", "input": "Review: My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23063217dac645668e6f6561b140a734", "input": "Review: I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about \"Berserkers\" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7768048d7f624f548e32033dd8c3fade", "input": "Review: The Straight Story is a multilevel exploration of the goodness and beauty of America. At one level a slow walk through the heartland, it's kind inhabitants, and amber grain, at another level about growing old and remembering what is important(and actively forgetting what isn't). David Lynch gives us time in this movie and helps me to remember that so much can be said with silence. A remarkable movie that will rest gently with me for some time to come. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69afb8315bb1444ab4880ccea0e6863a", "input": "Review: Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f319d5da7ef448d6a6659cdf2f00153e", "input": "Review: The Caprica episode (S01E01) is well done as a pilot. Really, this episode is the exact same content as the DVD pilot release. That having been said, episode 01 gives a very substantive background of the very popular \"Battlestar Galactica\" series (both the original and the 2007 remake). It significantly applies most to the 2007 series. As is the trending plots of sci-fi of late, this series explores \"Virtual\" life or environment. On top of this, we are given much background on the Adama family line as well as their relationship with the unrevealed (in the Battlestar Galactica series) creator of the Cylons. To the most part, this first episode revolves around the popular topic of \"Virtual\" life and (as is expected) early life of the colonies, and the birth of the Cylons. Over all, I rather enjoyed this episode. Although, it was not new material for myself or anyone that has already seen the DVD release of the Caprica pilot, the series seems very promising. As is the case with many pilots, episode 01 leaves us with a cliff-hanger so to ensure a follow by an audience (sci-fi community). I'm definitely going to keep watching for resolve as well as development. I give this series 8 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b70480ea46ad4bdba7ff8b4f48774d42", "input": "Review: The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of \"Tintorera\" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e79a7395e8547578720eef855ac58b2", "input": "Review: Here we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointlessThe twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f8c0d79b57348bb9ae6f10f88a24d99", "input": "Review: This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, \"Oh no, I can't have this baby!\" and \"Oh, no here it comes\"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making. For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f865d2fed5849b89314dd03bdd11675", "input": "Review: When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a666d5eb392a435d94115dea65216576", "input": "Review: Trudy Lintz (Rene Russo) was one very fortunate lady many years ago. She was the wife of a wealthy doctor and had lots of extracurricular money. Her passion was animals and she devoted herself to providing a sanctuary for the furry ones on her property grounds. Trudy also raised two chimps in her home to be more like children. They dressed in clothes and had many amenities. One day, she learns of an abandoned baby gorilla. Knowing nothing about the large apes, she relies on her husband's medical abilities and expert advice to save the gorilla's life. Once out of danger, Trudy decides she will raise the gorilla, also, as one of her children. This works well for years and Buddy, the gorilla, is truly a remarkably intelligent addition to her home. But, Buddy is also a gorilla and his strength and curiosity become quite enormous. Will Trudy be able to keep Buddy under control? For those who love animals, Buddy is a must-see movie. Based on a true story, Trudy and her ape develop a relationship that is unique in the annals of animal history and lore. Of course, Buddy is not a real gorilla but a mechanical one, in the film, but he is very close to seeming totally real. Russo gives a nice performance as a lady ahead of her time and the supporting players are also quite nice. The costumes are exemplary, as befitting the earlier era of the story, and the settings and production values outstanding. But, most importantly, animals are here in abundance, not only Buddy, but the adorable chimps, the ducks, the rabbits, and so forth. For those who want to watch a film and be transported to animal heaven, here on earth, this is a great movie choice. All animal lovers, and even those who just want to watch a great family film, will go \"ape\" over Buddy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d877c96f78e4df2b9b79bf966c5177f", "input": "Review: *McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) *McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly \"classic Seventies cinema\", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the \"dark brown glow\" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying \"Altman-esque\" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d752d105c46541a9b2240672854ec6c4", "input": "Review: 1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a \"sleepwalker\" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b31d90cb9844bc08582907d788e99ed", "input": "Review: Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-608505c0b77547ba9095a7ae3142550a", "input": "Review: MY EYES! IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE ME UNSEE THIS MOVIE! what drugs are you people on! this could very well be the worst movie ever! i felt like i was on a bad acid trip the whole time, i need to call a therapist to help me deal with the trauma of this epic disaster. From start to finish glow ropes is an unholy masterpiece of satanic cinema. when i thought to watch this movie with my Jewish best friend and his family we thought \"oh hey, this may be funny! it will probably be bad but still a little funny\" how wrong we were, we were not prepared for how awful this movie could be. All of my friends lined up for lobotomies as soon as the film was over, and during the course of the movie, one of my friends attempted to hang himself with his belt while another tried to slit his wrists with a wooden spoon. I wish I had watched the video from The Ring instead, that way the pain and suffering would be over in only seven short days. For all who wish to see this movie, YOU ARE NOT PREPARED! you may think you are some sort of \"tough guy\" by renting this but this movie will break you, push you to the ground and urinate on you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e6b8aaad5554739a1715b807aeabe8d", "input": "Review: Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4af22507c382435a8a2c7ca29a96d493", "input": "Review: EARTH is a must see for children and adults. My son had great fun watching all these funny birds and ice bears. We can learn a lot from this movie and we should be proud on our great treasure on earth. There are some animals in danger to disappear. Exactly that problem should prevent all the authorities of our planet. This documentary offers many exceptional pictures that I have never seen before. Then it is well accompanied by a heavenly music. The director did a great job here that gets high respect. Nothing can stop me and my family to give EARTH the highest rate. I hope so much that the stuff will create a sequel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-45de53c904894f4c90625b9f8ce4312b", "input": "Review: I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c90d91b50901489d9c3f215a2d1f4f33", "input": "Review: A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-23916414bc5b40299e099890e2166bfc", "input": "Review: Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, \"Jingle All the Way\" looked better than \"The Godfather\". \"Santa Claus\" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8bcc109aa431407ab515139883d789a2", "input": "Review: \"Kolchak: the Night Stalker\" is a hugely entertaining TV series in which a pushy, sarcastic, forty-something reporter is repeatedly drawn into mortal combat with supernatural (and occasionally extraterrestrial) forces. Based on a very popular pair of TV movies featuring the Kolchak character, this series died a quick death in the mid-1970s due to low ratings, but it nevertheless maintains a strong cult following today. But will the average modern-day viewer be able to dig Kolchak and his weekly clashes with the undead? That's actually a tough question to answer fairly. Detractors of this series tend to argue that it's formulaic and hopelessly dated. On the other hand, fans argue that it's cleverly written, well-acted, and sometimes genuinely spooky. And me? I've got a foot in both camps. I thoroughly enjoyed watching all 20 episodes of Kolchak on DVD recently, though I can plainly see that the series has major flaws.I'll address the question of Kolchak being \"formula\" fiction first. Now, I think we can all agree that most TV shows have formulas - just about every episode of Columbo unfolds according to the same pattern, for example. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing in itself; in fact, critics have long recognized that audiences often enjoy, and actively seek out, repetitive entertainment. However, the problem with Kolchak is that its formula is simply TOO rigid - it's too repetitive even by the most generous standards.In almost every episode, Kolchak investigates a murder, and figures out that it was committed by some form of monster. He tries to publish a story about said monster, but his editor Vincenzo blocks him, always on the grounds that Kolchak doesn't have sufficient evidence to support his claims that supernatural forces are at work. And, alas, Kolchak is also obstructed by the police. So, in the end, Kolchak does some independent research on the monster, figures out how to kill it... and then kills it. Without ceremony, or reward, or writing a big story about it.You can see where this ever-so-strict formula might get tiresome, right? I'm particularly mystified by Vincenzo - if Kolchak's always raving about monsters, and Vincenzo never believes it... well, then, why doesn't Vincenzo fire Kolchak, or have him committed? That's what any normal boss would do. But the series eschews such realism and prefers to keep Vincenzo and Kolchak as comical antagonists. As a result, many of their scenes together are profoundly unbelievable - though they are also quite funny.The very best episodes of Kolchak manage to vault over the limitations of this formula, however, usually because they contain some kind of unexpected twist. These select episodes are good enough that I think they're largely immune to typical criticisms of the series. Some of my favorites include: Horror in the Heights - an episode that's noteworthy for being grimy, inventive and socially aware. Kolchak's dialog has an unusually sharp and cynical edge. Though it adheres closely to the Kolchak formula, the script (written by Hammer Studios veteran Jimmy Sangster) is remarkably literate, and it delves deeply into the monster's backstory.The Devil's Platform - a possible inspiration for the \"Omen\" films, this episode stands out to me because the villain - a very young Tom Skerritt - tempts Kolchak with a satanic contract full of goodies (and, in so doing, reveals a lot about the reporter's character.) Firefall - this episode appears to have a bad reputation among fans, but I enjoyed it because it's got a great red herring and a really creepy, almost unstoppable-seeming monster.Though I've singled out these three episodes for praise, I'd say that most of the stories are entertaining at the very least. For my money, there are only two complete turkeys in the 20-episode run: Primal Scream, which is about monkey-men running rampant in Chicago, and the Sentry, which features the dumbest-looking creature makeup in the history of filmed entertainment (and this assessment is coming from a lifelong Doctor Who and Godzilla fan!) On balance, then, this is a good series. A little repetitive, a little cheesy perhaps, but it has elements of greatness. Even during the weaker episodes, Darren McGavin's wonderful performance as the caustic, world-weary, endlessly funny Kolchak truly shines. He carries the series effortlessly, in a way that, for example, Sarah Michelle Gellar never managed on \"Buffy.\" McGavin was one great character actor, and this series is worth watching for him alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5024af37e844f4d889c3073f5ea9247", "input": "Review: My husband is a huge Robin Williams fan. I like him too, but have generally found that he should \"stick to what he does best\" and focus on comedic roles. My thoughts were confirmed with this movie. I was completely bored throughout the entire film. The story was predictable. I realize it was inspired by a true story. But, my guess is that there could have been some suspense or intrigue even while maintaining truth in the story. None of the characters were well developed. There was a side story about the main character and his partner. This relationship could have been explored further. More important, though, would have been a deeper exploration of the mother of the \"boy\". Her psychological profile would have been interesting to delve into. She obviously has a long history that was not touched upon except in the most superficial way. If my husband wasn't such a huge Williams fan, we would have left 20 minutes into it. Too bad I can't get my $20 or 2 hours back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75db774df241443c8cd6b855065547d5", "input": "Review: It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65ef5388da554d019a7d7f42596cf1a5", "input": "Review: This movie is a perfect portrayal of The Nutcracker; the dancing is wonderful, the scenery in the background was excellent, and I LOVED THAT FLOATING BED.Oh, and the costumes... I particularly loved Marzipan's, the tutu was adorable. The special effects were very well done (e.g. the tree, the bed, etc.), and I quite enjoyed the rats. I love how they didn't make them scary, but cute and huggable. Except for the king, I suppose.If you're a thoroughly masculine person, you won't enjoy this, but this is a very good movie that's good for all ages - just not all levels of testosterone.But I have a few complaints.Firstly, why did they have to put the Sugar Plum Fairy's partner in those terrible tights? It would barely make a difference if he was butt naked! And secondly.. why on EARTH did they have to make Culkin's outfit PINK? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94d0b308dc2c496bb80a1b86e6e7e2a3", "input": "Review: Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d8cb489ff67492ab58f5b3346242eb7", "input": "Review: 79/100. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers never made anything but great films together. Although this is not one of their best, it is an excellent musical. There are a few outstanding musical numbers, good support from Randolph Scott. Two notable appearances, Betty Grable and Lucille Ball make memorable early screen performances. Ball is particularly good, and a blonde as well. The \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is one of the musical duo's best numbers ever. Harriet Hilliard, better know as Harriet Nelson of \"Ozzie and Harriet\" plays Ginger Roger's sister. The basic plot is pretty familiar, but with a cast this exceptional, it works. Excellent art direction and score. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74846dc13c684a938cc05c7741dbcf34", "input": "Review: Jörg Buttgereit goes a bit too far with his movies and themes at times, even for my taste but his movies are always something special and hard to classify. They are artistically made, with also often deeper meaning to its themes. This movie is a perfect example of his work.It's also really hard to label this movie. It's not really a movie with a story to it, in a sense of having a beginning, middle and end in it. It also doesn't have a main character but instead focuses on 7 different suicides and killings, on 7 different days.All different stories are being told with lots of class, though some of them are of course more 'interesting' and realistic than the others. They are not necessarily connected but yet together they still tell a story. The movie doesn't feel disjointed at all. All different stories have a different feel to it and Buttgereit tells the story without hardly using any words (also typical for his style) but instead lets the images and obvious sensible emotions of the characters tell the entire story. It helps to make this movie an effective one to watch.Again, the production values all aren't too high and this might be something that might scare off some people. It however helps for this particular movie to set the right tone and atmosphere for the entire movie and its dark, disturbing and depressing themes.A Buttgereit movie that I 'enjoyed' watching.7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea2e80b6540f4432ab3d0fe37c7f9aff", "input": "Review: If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8c2d391cab245088dd7caeea2cba6ac", "input": "Review: This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7e0aeb508fa4a87b1d0d33d54bb5517", "input": "Review: I have no idea what the other reviewer is talking about- this was a wonderful movie, and created a sense of the era that feels like time travel. The characters are truly young, Mary is a strong match for Byron, Claire is juvenile and a tad annoying, Polidori is a convincing beaten-down sycophant... all are beautiful, curious, and decadent... not the frightening wrecks they are in Gothic.Gothic works as an independent piece of shock film, and I loved it for different reasons, but this works like a Merchant and Ivory film, and was from my readings the best capture of what the summer must have felt like. Romantic, yes, but completely rekindles my interest in the lives of Shelley and Byron every time I think about the film. One of my all-time favorites. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e553bf1484b14d3a8cda0d6e051e2598", "input": "Review: for those of you who love lord of the rings and love special effects, watch this movie! this will be sure to keep you glued to the screen. you will probably even like it if you like watching people fight with magical stuff. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2bd20849da84ef580b5493fe9027868", "input": "Review: From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu \"I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me\" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa93bd0c309c4dc0b95becec2eb0a1c0", "input": "Review: Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d89d92d34ed413595793f75925fe426", "input": "Review: For me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-05d105d1cc504797b1c21c31d75951ce", "input": "Review: I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47faf257802144869a2ae8cdb99f49fb", "input": "Review: Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly – I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the \"plot\" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right – we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews – I have seen \"user reviews\" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that \"praise\" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a05f91ea036a4f13af69850358d7987b", "input": "Review: Cusack does his best David Niven in this one, although I don't know if anyone besides me noticed it.When seen with this in mind, its a deliciously over saturated 'wants to be taken more seriously than Austin powers but still be pretty d*mn funny' reworking of an under-appreciated comedy classic.Hillary Duff does an over sexualized Britney spears lap dance version of Mata Bond. The writers built a little reverse Oedipus twist into the plot - interesting choice.I never knew how soothing Montel's voice was until this movie... I think he has found a new calling doing nav system voice overs! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-62cdc752ff774b0aa64bd5238b29f1d1", "input": "Review: i really liked the first 2 seasons. because a lot of good characters disappeared later on. like most shows are kinda slow at first then get better in later seasons, but this is the absolute reverse. jenny from the 1st season and Valarie from the 2nd season were Sabrina's friends, i really didn't care for the others, jenny and Valarie were her coolest friends. i think for some reason, the producers wanted us to not like her college friends for some reason, they were so cruel to Sabrina. but my favorite episode from season 1 is cat showdown and my favorite episode from season 2 is witch trash, that is the funniest episode. i also thought it was funny how Libby was popular but she was always jealous of Sabrina, and never seemed to have a real boyfriend but was always wanting to be with Harvey. i just wished they could have made more better ones. i also liked how the first 2 seasons, during the opening credits Sabrina would say a few words while wearing a costume, like in the pilot episode where she's in the witch costume, i liked how she said \"this is so not me\" and later on she kept trying to change herself to something else is what i think, but this is a really cool show. it is kinda like the andy griffith show in a way because it good at first but once it turned color and barney fife left, it was longer good. but i still like to watch it, but the only reason i watch later seasons is because of sabrina. what i meant about the opening sequence is: the opening titles of seasons 1-3 shows Sabrina in front of a mirror posing with several different costumes and outfits as the cast members' names quickly flash on the bottom of the screen. At the end, Sabrina would say some sort of pun that related to the outfit she is wearing, then disappear. the opening sequence of season four includes the characters in bubbles. the opening credits of seasons 5-7 features Sabrina at various locations around Boston Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7f3c6d66a274c7ea829aff20c323a43", "input": "Review: I sit through movies like \"Tiempo de valientes\" and I want to talk about cinema for hours. The admiration this movie caused me is beyond my own limits of explanation, because I'm watching the scenes of the film and I search inside my thoughts for film-making ideas and dialogue innovations that could emerge from something bigger than Damian Szifron's mind.Looking the environment, so uncompromised, so simple, I'm thinking; this man is a genius. No wonder he created what is probably the best television show Argentina ever witnessed, and then a first movie full of elements some contemporary directors haven't still achieved. \"El fondo del mar\" is the name and, it awakened (a few years ago), my enthusiasm for our everyday cinema.Starting his journey from people's daily real lives, Szifron goes where Pablo Trapero never could in \"El Bonaerense\"; the Federal Police Department's life. Trapero's film was a journey into a man's mind and experiences, not into the places he saw. Yes, there was a detailed training and lots of crime situations, but Szifron in \"in there\", his is more of a detective story, like the ones we know and love, with the mysteries and the thrilling music.But there's a lot of humanity in his writing, and he shows us his investigation through the eyes of his main characters, Alfredo Díaz and Mariano Silverstein. There are a lot of actors of great caliber in the film, but these two actors are the ones the film can't do without. The first character (Luis Luque) is a detective that has just found out his wife cheats on him; and has to work on a case.The second one is a psychiatrist that is assigned the treatment of the detective. He wants to deal with him in regular sessions but the sheriff takes advantage of the time disposition and suggests he joins Díaz in his routines: \"It's nothing, the usual stuff; no problem\". But it is bigger than that, and it will unfold a part of the doctor's personality he didn't know.The relationship developed between the two leads can't be explained unless it is observed, because it regards such a complexity that demonstrates how talented are some men like Szifron that are trying, today, to leave a signature in our history. Reaching points of unbelievable spontaneity, during a high pressure situation, Díaz tells Silverstein: \"How do we continue our treatment?\", and Silverstein answers: \"No, I'm not your doctor. You call me to have dinner; I'm your friend\": we laugh because we can't help it.And we can't help laughing when Díaz crashes a car in the street and doesn't gives importance to it, or when he trespasses all the red lights in the street, or when he smokes pot in his police patrol and Silverstein can't believe it (but then smokes it too because he's screwed up); or when Silverstein tries to be friendly with Díaz's robber friends. Magic from Diego Peretti is what we receive there. He, a psychiatrist himself, gives a performance in plan \"Locas de amor\", but impresses with all his range. Luis Luque on the other hand, is back on track with a top-notch portrayal that reminds us the great actor he is.There's a passion I have for this, and as I said, I could write about it for hours, but unfortunately that's not the way it works and I have to be precise and summarize. Although I have to watch a lot of the old movies and study them, I could assure that \"Tiempo de valientes\" is the comedy Argentina had been waiting for and never got…Until now. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b635f3c199794a44b53a2a47bcb430f6", "input": "Review: Down To Earth is the best movie!!! It is SO funny, and it's really sweet too. It has a good plot and it's unique. It isn't like those movies that are all the same with the similar story lines, and it's not all comedy and no story. This movie also has a very good ending. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-992a220383de400786a4547a2f1c1a36", "input": "Review: Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-237524424f114c21954132284c4b81fa", "input": "Review: (Spoilers)I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.Too bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e545242283f04abca1f26c3854362f36", "input": "Review: This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69c2d405b7204a1a9ba725a650a34c77", "input": "Review: This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-832de5070ec048ce9bf7df012b9d68da", "input": "Review: I'm grateful to Cesar Montano and his crew in reviving the once-moribund Visayan film understorey. \"Panaghoy\" is hopefully the forerunner of a resurgence in this vernacular (that claims more speakers than Tagalog). The dialect and lifestyle details are accurately reminiscent of this region of the Philippines. Downside: the corny and stilted acting of the American antagonist. The other item that I didn't appreciate was the lack of authenticity in the \"period\" costume of the same character, and above all, his bright red kit-car that I suppose was meant to pass for a 1930s roadster. Without those small yet glaring details, \"Panaghoy\" would've been at least a 9 out of 10 on my rating--daghang salamat, Manoy Cesar! Addendum: this film sure beats Peque Gallaga's \"Oro, Plata, Mata\", which provided a different view of the Visayas during the Second World War. Alos, there are some parts where the cinematography harks back to Spielberg's \"The Color Purple\" and the storyline begins to become reminiscent of \"Noli Me Tangere\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e37886cca734e72a7bd36da1594ac53", "input": "Review: Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e689100626946e4b82086e6fd364ea7", "input": "Review: An absolute classic !! The direction is flawless , the acting is just superb. Words fall short for this great work. The most definitive movie on Mumbai Police. This movie has stood the test of times.Om Puri gives a stellar performance, Smita Patil no less. All the actors have done their best and the movie races on thrilling you at every moment. This movie shakes your whole being badly and forces you to rethink about many issues that confront our society.This is the story of a cop (Om Puri ) who starts out in his career as a honest man but ultimately degenerates into a killer. The first attempt in Bollywood to get behind the scenes and expose the depressing truth about Mumbai cops. Kudos to Nihalani !! After this movie a slew of Bollywood movies got released that exposed the criminal-politician-police nexus. Thus this movie was truly a trend setter. This trend dominated the Hindi movie scene for more than a decade. This movie was a moderate box office hit. A must-see for discerning movie fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eacc9e496e564ecd95922b1d3f1c136f", "input": "Review: Starlift is a pleasant and interesting throwback to those all star musical pictures that every studio was putting out during the World War II years. When you've got such stars as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Randolph Scott, etc., in the film and with such people as the Gershwin Brothers, Cole Porter, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn supplying the music, it's an easy to take film. And the plot isn't even in the way.What plot there is involves two Air Force enlisted men, Dick Wesson and Ron Hagerthy, trying to meet Warner Brothers starlet Janice Rule using as a gimmick the fact that both come from Youngstown, Ohio and Hagerthy's father was Rule's dentist as well as half of the town's. The scheme works too well as Louella Parsons is soon putting them as an item in her column. Yes, Louella's in the film as well. She must have liked Warner Brothers or Jack Warner catered to her more than the other studio bosses because she also used this studio to publicize her Hollywood Hotel radio program back in the day.But the rest of the plot also touched on the real life efforts of Ruth Roman also playing herself to get her studio and others to do shows at the Air Force bases for the servicemen and women going to Korea. Some of the names I've mentioned and others sing and perform in a show at Travis Air Force Base where a lot of this film was shot.One specialty number was shot for the talents of Phil Harris who sing/narrates a ballad Look Out Stranger, I'm A Texas Ranger aided and assisted by Virginia Gibson, Frank Lovejoy and Gary Cooper. Yup, Cooper looked like he was having a great old time kidding his image.This is the oldest of clichés when you say they don't make them like this any more, but they really don't because you don't have a studio system that has all this talent under contract. That's one thing about the demise of the old studio system we can mourn. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-977af310e937446192386bc18bce3f92", "input": "Review: And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, \"The Real\" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since \"Bucket of Blood\"), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-98ee3b90c5cc46ae8c3c4e7e54a380c2", "input": "Review: I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a14e5e5d42bb490ca7cc2c5d70e6071d", "input": "Review: Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7199efdf0904ff19d24a0c032f7931d", "input": "Review: This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f90af89b5a2431884ac375d074748f4", "input": "Review: I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a6a0797fb13498abeb6df8cc93ae3ab", "input": "Review: The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous – summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called \"Taboo\", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): \"Taboo – Jogando Com o Assassino\" (\"Taboo – Playing With the Killer\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c9a686963c44542a725ef1fda5341a5", "input": "Review: I only saw IPHIGENIA once, almost 30 years ago, but it has haunted me since.One sequence particularly stays in mind, and could only have been fashioned by a great director, as Michael Cacoyanis undoubtedly is.The context: the weight of history and a mighty army and fleet all lie on King Agamemnon's shoulders. An act of sacrilege has becalmed the seas, endangering his great expedition to Troy. He is told he must sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to Apollo in order to gain the winds for the sails of the Thousand Ships. He initially resists, but comes around, and tricks his wife Clytemenstra to bring their daughter to the Greek camp in order to marry the greatest of all warriors, Achilles.Clytemnestra and Iphigenia arrive, find out about the sacrifice, and rage to the gods for protection and vengeance. Meanwhile, the proud Achilles discovers that his name has been used in this fraudulent, dishonorable way. He climbs a hill to tell Iphigenia that he will protect her.The shot: The camera circles the two young people, without looking directly at each other. They bemoan their fate, and the weakness of men that deceive their loved ones and lust for war. Suddenly, they gaze at each other and, for one moment, we feel both their power and beauty, and the unstated--except by the camera--irony that in another time, another place, they perhaps could love each other and be married. It is a sharp and sad epiphany that lasts only for an instant.What direction! What camera! What storytelling! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b02eccdbb118445287863928d4531a40", "input": "Review: I must give How She Move a near-perfect rating because the content is truly great. As a previous reviewer commented, I have no idea how this film has found itself in IMDBs bottom 100 list! That's absolutely ridiculous! Other films--particular those that share the dance theme--can't hold a candle to this one in terms of its combination of top-notch, believable acting, and amazing dance routines.From start to finish the underlying story (this is not just about winning a competition) is very easy to delve into, and surprisingly realistic. None of the main characters in this are 2-dimensional by any means and, by the end of the film, it's very easy to feel emotionally invested in them. (And, even if you're not the crying type, you might get a little weepy-eyed before the credits roll.) I definitely recommend this film to dance-lovers and, even more so, to those who can appreciate a poignant and well-acted storyline. How She Move isn't perfect of course (what film is?), but it's definitely a cut above movies that use pretty faces to hide a half-baked plot and/or characters who lack substance. The actors and settings in this film make for a very realistic ride that is equally enthralling thanks to the amazing talent of the dancers! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c83608cd06a74f8b93e9a47a563059e8", "input": "Review: ...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say \"It's for you\". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13f841bbfb8e45519562cc02d9d47561", "input": "Review: I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the \"Bridges Of Madison County\" which I believe was released around the same time. But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93b01862faff4c6798de5fc891ad5bf1", "input": "Review: Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid \"movie\" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps \"Home Alone 2: Lost in New York\" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-26c8f513f1224f1bb12640429be3be26", "input": "Review: Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b9042390cb248b9baf32f7df0e46c05", "input": "Review: This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an \"Igor\"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in \"Kleinschloss\" (\"little castle\"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-353823ffa8f241e18d1bcc403cbce5ad", "input": "Review: At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some \"repertoire\" directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f6d9a7e97c34acd85006be870d838b2", "input": "Review: Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa8707bb0ab74a5c848405fe52d04d6d", "input": "Review: There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b38673fef4b44f98fc68d731bbf3540", "input": "Review: Unreal \"movie\", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect \"penis\" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the \"penis\" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the \"main event\" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d892c6e9647e409b860fc752b6d87ce3", "input": "Review: In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like \"Plan 9!\") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55972ab9dd524dd1956fd2bdea88e5a8", "input": "Review: Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae6c37c008c6493baf8a305be326aab0", "input": "Review: just saw this exquisite 1982 movie Return of the Soldier, based on Rebecca West's novel. Its about a shell-shocked fortyish Captain who doesn't even tell his wife he has returned to British soil, but remains in a hospital in London. He's lost his memory and is a boy again, with a lingering yen for the lower class sweetheart he pursued 25 years earlier. Its a delicate story. He is lingering in his boyhood, while the reader discovers his wife is an unbearable, aspiring socialite who wants him to resume his place in society. Living with them is his cousin Jenny, who loved Chris Baldry the soldier, when they were growing up as playmates, but has settled into spinsterhood. The lower class woman, played by Glenda Jackson, is Margaret Gray. It is SHE who is notified that Chris is back in England. Chris' wife Kitty is shocked when Mrs. Gray comes to tell her that Chris is in a hospital in London. Kitty (Julie Christie) is vacuous and snobbish. Why, she asks herself, was this other woman sent a telegraph about Chris rather than her? Chris has forgotten totally about Kitty. He wants to renew his relationship with Margaret. The now married Margaret is reluctant to meet him, but then does and continues to meet with him. There is a psychiatrist (Ian Holm) who warns Kitty and Jenny that Chris' temporary happiness with Margaret will disappear if he 'cures' him. Jenny realizes how empty Kitty is for Chris and forms a secret loving alliance through Margaret. They both are in love with him. Jenny wants to help. Late in the film Kitty reveals that Chris and she had a boy who died five years ago. Telling Chris this, weighs the Shrink, will certainly restore him to 'normal.' But is this a good idea? Chris, barely aware that he and Kitty were ever married, is unaware of his child and the child's death. The psychiatrist, just learning of the child, believes such knowledge will restore Chris. Jenny and Margaret have Chris all to themselves because Kitty believes he is faking and refuses to accept Chris's illness in reverting to his youth in his forties. The film leaves her mostly out of consideration concerning whats to be done with Chris.But Jenny and Margaret, in the child's perfectly maintained bedroom- with Kitty too in the novel, but not in the screenplay- discuss what they believe should be done about Chris from their separate perspectives. Margaret is the critical one here, because, though married, she has half fallen in love with Chris again. Jenny's social stature, Jenny believes, will be threatened if Chris does not right himself. She does not reveal this to Margaret, however. Margaret decides, looking ahead, that Chris cannot maintain his fantasy over time, but must return to something like a real life. While Kitty and Jenny look on from the window of the house, Margaret approaches Chris outside and tells him of his lost son. The buoyant war victim's head sinks, his shoulders slump, he looks away. He walks dejectedly toward the house. FinI read some criticism of this first novel of Rebecca West. The novel was written something after the first war. The movie is never quite clear who Jenny is, his cousin or his sister. It would be more rousing if she were his sister, of course. The criticism doesn't make it clear either. I'm sure West in her novel, makes sure Jenny is her cousin, not her sister. West is no Henry Miller nor an Anais Nin, whose book Incest (about her relationship with her father as an adult to get even with him for molesting her as a child) I considered reading, but then decided against. Rebecca the author has a need to restore Chris too. She too has outposts in her head for the Society her novel excoriates first but finally embraces once more. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cad908cb8bfa4876a1cf1d869d7c71e5", "input": "Review: With the MASSIVE advertising this is getting on Nickelodeon and Nick Jr. and that ilk, my son was bugging us to see it. Between DVD and the theaters, I've seen pretty much everything by now from the outstanding (Incredibles, Shrek) to the really bad (Wall-E, Brother Bear). But this was easily the worst movie I've ever seen, kids or no kids. It was a \"when it this stupid thing going to end?\" kind of experience? OK, it's aimed at toddlers (or it better be - it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone over 3), but I've never seen something so predictable, repetitive, and slow-moving. Then once you're finally fed up but relieved that the movie is over, there is this bizarre thing at the end that you think is the setup for a joke, but there isn't one - it's serious, though it's hard to tell what they're trying to accomplish. The 3-D effects... yeah, if you've never seen a Viewmaster they're a big deal, otherwise no (if you look at the screen without glasses, it appears to be the same process). Even my son was bored by the end. Both my wife and I looked at each other and said \"wow\" at the end. Bad in every respect. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d92b03d548d4a73b33c523ccf4514eb", "input": "Review: I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in \"Anne Frank\" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5961a3d3c032444081540af94480714d", "input": "Review: This movie has an all star cast, John Candy, Richard Lewis, Ornella Mutti, Cybill Shepard, and Jim Belushi to name a few, run amuck in Monte Carlo, as well as some other beautiful European locations, and is very funny. The trouble that everyone gets in when they lie to protect themselves is great, and I highly recommend that you see this movie, it is well worth it! John Candy is in top form in Once Upon A Crime, as is everyone else! If you and your family are looking for a great family film, this is your ticket. Everyone gives stellar performances, great acting, great comedy, and great timing, which is rare in movies these days. Great plot, great mystery, (which I love anyways) and overall, well worth the money you spend on it. So get the kids, grab some popcorn, juice, or tea, or sodas, and enjoy the show!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2de95c28d071430d961f6ca84b7e76c2", "input": "Review: this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4401b0a958840d288344db2e65b1c06", "input": "Review: This film is about a male escort getting involved in a murder investigation that happened in the circle of powerful men's wives.I thought \"The Walker\" would be thrilling and engaging, but I was so wrong. The pacing is painfully and excruciatingly slow, that even after 40 minutes of the film nothing happens much. Seriously, the first hour could be condensed into ten minutes. That's how slow it is.The fact that it lacks any thrills or action scenes aggravates the boredom. It's almost shocking that even argument scenes are so plain and devoid of emotion. Maybe it is because of the stiff upper lip of the higher social class? It's sad that \"The Walker\" becomes such a boring mess, despite such a strong cast. Blame it on the poor plot and even worse pacing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1c18860dd5648afb5bb6ed207608cfb", "input": "Review: This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh \"movie\", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, \"Pledge This\" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13f53a80c83c440ea445039469d8b749", "input": "Review: I went to see \"Evening\" because of the cast. I'd gone to see \"Norman's Room\" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for \"The Notebook\" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt \"was a mistake\" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that \"past mistake\" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest \"girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy\" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- \"I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why.\" And the \"why\" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's \"perfect life,\" her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the \"really meaningful message\" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with \"Lifetime Movie-of-the-week\" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the \"meaningful\" and \"moviemaking\" aspects. I give it \"3\" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about \"Evening\" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent \"Norman's Room\" and find out what truly great acting is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ac65489f67745b0973bff62bd6c541b", "input": "Review: And I gave it a high 7.....Why? Because it bloody well rocked. At the time when there were so many OTHER shows on that were tied to toys/games this show was unique in that it had overlapping stories. As others have said here it was ahead of its time. Sadly this is why the show was doomed. They have released 4 DVDs with 16 episodes of the series so far. I am hoping that more come out. How does this compare watching it now 20 years after it first came out.. I don't know I still like it despite the sometimes clunky animation, and that IMHO is it's only flaw. The writing was almost top notch and way ahead of the competition........ I do hope for more DVDs or even a set of all the episodes in proper order... The DVDs are good but I don't think the stories are in their proper order, but despite this the show rocked. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b06810788ef849009f1ef4e9d8f2c0f2", "input": "Review: Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88ad2e677e824d2c838a018b9f4cdb1c", "input": "Review: What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3733293ede3e439eacb19fa78597532d", "input": "Review: Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. \"A Walk on the Moon\" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the \"blouse salesman\" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.Poor Diane Lane, she went to make \"Unfaithful\" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b08b0e3eb8db47cfab16ed664e186f7e", "input": "Review: I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since \"Beverly Hills Cop\" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the \"Raiders of the Lost Ark\" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f679732ebdd401c9faa75ffe843d19a", "input": "Review: `Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary – and inferior – but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. – knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c8afc094cb840cfb1c12ef3323e46bb", "input": "Review: I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8160f7642de4b09a310ec24f76990ed", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6db4951ce141440ea6613a0bef684889", "input": "Review: (spoilers?)while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time. I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.8/10Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-993edfc150e1454c81006e7dc43d1eaf", "input": "Review: This is a ripsnorting, old-fashioned adventure yarn. I understand that by today's political standards, the treatment of the Indians was unacceptable. But this moving isn't about politics. It's about action, dialogue, comradery, acting, direction, music, and photography, and it's marvelous on all these factors. Grant, Fairbanks, and McLaglen are electric together, and Jaffe is superb. This is the ultimate buddy movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a90d0cc93dec47a5894cc27c11d901fb", "input": "Review: Cradle of FearThis isn't a movie where intricate delicate little narrative nuances occupy our attention. This is not a film where the special effects are supposed to leave us slack-jacked uttering that sense of whoa. What it is though is a slice of lo-fi goth horror which leaves little to the imagination, created in the eyes of the director, Alex Chandon, as \"a throwback to sleazy '70s and '80s horror\".This is a very visceral experience for 2 hours, where four plot lines are connected through lots of watery blood, reams of dismembered body parts and innards, tied by an intestinal thread of revenge. The purveyor of such horrific violence is Dani Filth, lead-singer of the metal band Cradle of Filth, executing a role he was destined to play. As other's have said, there is nothing new about wanting to carryout occultist revenge. In this particular context a convicted sexual predator and murderer, Kemper, the father of our devilish avenging-angel, compels his son to exact retribution on those who are some how connected to convicting him to purgatory within an insane asylum.What this provides for the Chandon, who should be congratulated on also penning and editing this piece, is the opportunity to let his sick mind run free. He seems to take delight in the idea of splattering blood into the orifices of those on screen, and into every nook and cranny that can be reached. We are also treated to close-ups of skull's being crushed, demonic rape, and other assorted imagery to engage those who relish getting up close and personal to their horror. And for some of those who closely follow these type of films, there is the odd sequence which may have you thinking, \"Did I just see what I thought I did\", because of course Pretty Woman this 'aint. It reminds me of some of the gore-fests created out of Italian horror some 20 to 30 years ago, and a number of other works where disgusting images have left their mark but not the context in which they were viewed.Story 4 of the set is particularly intriguing where the idea of ones obsession can ultimately lead to death in the pursuit of internet violence through the \"Sick Room\", where the user is in control of how a life can be snuffed out. Further acknowledgements should also go out to a pounding soundtrack that allows Filth to exercise his daytime talent, and an effective use of drum and bass, often overlooked in film-making as a viable form of supporting visuals. Using the city of London as a backdrop with real people as opposed to movie stand-ins also adds support to the commando feel of the film. OK, classic it may not be, but blood, guts, intestines, occult and demons in a slightly perverse unproblematic way it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-390b4a91159946be88795018591b81ab", "input": "Review: Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e19e932dd1c0481093e43a4e034047f7", "input": "Review: This movie start quite gruesomely with a female being bound and psychologically tortured. There's male full frontal nudity, dead animal parts, dogs licking nipples, the female loosing control of her bladder. All shot in a gray cold color. Effective, but a little too much. We then move on to seeing the BTK killer's youth as well as the present and his history of crimes. The tension is entirely psychological and the scenes of the killer entering the homes of his victims and talking to them lasts for quite a long time and it's creepy. Here we don't see fancy or good imagery, it looks as if shot with your home camera. It doesn't look horrifying, but in a way seeing a criminal engage his victims for quite some time before killing them is quite unusual and chilling. What this movie doesn't have is any drama, really. There are some cop scenes every once in a while, but there's no excitement in terms of them finding the killer. There isn't much of an arc to this story. This could have been an effective psychological thriller, a study of madness. Unfortunately, the movie is filled with real slaughterhouse footage. It's dispersed throughout the movie and comes on suddenly again and again. Sometimes you don't know it's coming and don't have enough time to look away. And that I have to reject. I'm all for low budget horror movies but I don't tolerate animal suffering. It was unnecessary, excessive, and comes without warning. I'm glad that Lionsgate releases stuff that no one else does, but they should have passed on this movie or edited out the animal gore. Stay away from this garbage. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc2f804d37f44480a02d9dc12133c530", "input": "Review: This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1197f1a42a04ef4833622eaef275917", "input": "Review: I find this movie the best movie I have ever seen, because it reflects the inner strength of a young girl during the second world war. The movie is impressive, not least because it actually happened. It reminds me of the story of Anne Frank. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba7564166f0f4fcfbc865e59a4fc6901", "input": "Review: Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow \"beautiful\". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce5dc8a46b174d3a966b428bf469ba34", "input": "Review: the cover of the box makes this movie look really good, don't be fooled. splatter university came out in 1984 which was the last good year for horror, but this movie sucks. the characters are so annoying. only the teacher is cool. there is like no plot to this movie, who the hell would ever produce this waste of a film?spoilers up aheadthe teacher dies in this, and it was a female, we all know that we must have a female surviver, if you're going to break the rules do it in a good horror flick not this waste Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce8637b14c0348aeb6983768cbf1dcc8", "input": "Review: Let me set the scene. It is the school holidays and there is absolutely nothing at the movies. I am with my friend deciding what to see. We look for a movie that is starting soon and \"The Grinch\" comes up. We buy tickets not knowing what to expect. What we got was a roller coaster of fun.Jim Carrey (who may I add is my No.1 actor in the whole world) was absolutely magnificent as the Grinch in this Ron Howard's best movie (next to Apollo 13). The way that this movie was made, the scenery, the actors, the props and the music was just amazing. It really brought this childhood movie to life.The story is based upon the story of the grinch. As we all know the Grinch is a horrible person who just can't stand christmas. He lives high above whoville and has never mingled well with the townfolk. But one little girl is going to change The Grinch's look on life and on others in a drastic way.Cindy Lou Who (played by adorable new actress Taylor Momsem) meets the Grinch as finds the kind part of him straight away. She attempts to break the barrier and to help the Grinch move in and mingle with the towns people.All up this movie is a barrel of laughs for the whole family both kids and parents. A SOLID 10/10. Well done Jim. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7234b003dac420593c198784e740b24", "input": "Review: This movie seems on the surface to be a run of mill kids movie that parents can regretfully watch with their mostly entertained little kids. The movie seems and is mostly geared towards children yet it does not stop on this level. I watched this movie first as a young child and found it to be funny, entertaining,and heartwarming and did not see it again for several years. I watched it again recently at age 18 and found it to be almost as funny but just as heartwarming and entertaining. This movie is highly underrated and contains many messages of real life. This movie is an inspirational quest story that is made for kids yet epic in its own right. I recommend this movie to anyone of any age. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f9f4722617f4d0c8b8ab123fad4d9c6", "input": "Review: What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its \"gotcha\" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a \"shot-on-video\" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-061f7b924fa94f8a84e3591dcafbe1cf", "input": "Review: I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, \"Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!\" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the \"hilarious\" and \"outstanding\" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered \"comedy\" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fcd9c54d5a1418fafc7ef14f74c4553", "input": "Review: STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? \"The phone rang. The phone rang again.\" How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, \"It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK.\" An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d2eb9bf1b3e44fda10dae879b1f5a3b", "input": "Review: Where to begin? #1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... heA) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani JailsD) All of the aboveE) The producers were having a little too much bhang atthe time they approved the script?#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) \"If god wills it, we'll meet again\"... Basically meaning, \"I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!\" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c146c8397b3e4a81a07b16998c1aa99f", "input": "Review: The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live') Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8dbefea5c88c44759d82d38421c431cb", "input": "Review: \"Boom\" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.The sad and disturbing fact of \"Boom\" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with \"Modesty Blaise\" and \"Boom\" (some may wish to add \"Secret Ceremony\"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful \"Go-Between\".Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in \"Night of the Iguana\" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both \"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof\" and \"Suddenly Last Summer\". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied \"if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams\". Had Gielgud seen \"Boom\" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British \"angry young men\". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.\"Boom\" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-758a22b7efa046d3ae6bc1cee482ea56", "input": "Review: I loved this movie! It was all I could do not to break down into tears while watching it, but it is really very uplifting. I was struck by the performance of Ray Liotta, but especially the talent of Tom Hulce portraying Ray's twin brother who is mentally slow due to a tragic and terrible childhood event. But Tom's character, though heartbreaking, knows no self pity and is so full of hope and life. This is a great movie, don't miss it!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f2a9f059e454d4cb2527f2692f6bd54", "input": "Review: Fot the most part, this movie feels like a \"made-for-TV\" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the \"Semetary.\" There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-919ab3a5cf234faa80029b8640981b71", "input": "Review: ...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst \"D\" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression \"less is more\". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68562e6e859b46cbb7467fde0ba1f293", "input": "Review: As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09688ffee70544fe9cf1c0766c9f291a", "input": "Review: Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-49652ab61f7e487d948d50dce945f95a", "input": "Review: Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-924aee6908fb4552a5b700c44eb14214", "input": "Review: Genghis Cohn is a (very) mildly entertaining British movie about a German police commissioner in the late 1950's who is haunted by the ghost of a Jewish comedian that he killed 15 years earlier while serving under Hitler in the SS. The ghost comes back and wants his killer to live as a Jew to atone for the murders he committed.Otto, the German policeman actually knows this ghost's name because, the last thing he did before he died was said, in Yiddish, `Kiss my ass'. The policeman didn't speak Yiddish, so he asked around until he found the meaning. The `kiss my ass' left such an impression that everybody involved with that killing learned and remembered the comedian's name, Genghis Cohn.There are a bunch of men who are murdered in the jurisdiction of the police commissioner, and there are no helpful clues. The men are murdered with a set of knives that are missing from the local butcher. The butcher announces that his knives are missing while the commissioner is in the store to get a liver and onion sandwich, so the commissioner is a suspect. The first man is killed while making love to the butcher's wife, so the butcher is a suspect. But the butcher maintains that he would be very busy if he killed every man that slept with his wife. All the men are killed immediately after the climax of lovemaking.I think I might be a bit angrier than the ghost of Genghis Cohn if I was killed like he was. He seems to be very good-natured about it, as if he was just in a mild car accident. I can only guess that it is because it is a British movie and they are known for being a very polite people. He uses some of his material from his stand-up routing, and I just didn't find it very funny.I gave this movie a 4 because it was just kind of goofy. I thought it should have been a little more serious than it was. The movie turns out to be a murder mystery (where did this come from?), and it seemed that Genghis should have been more helpful than he was. The movie gave me a tiny look into Jewish culture, but was only skin-deep. Do all Jews love liver and onion sandwiches? Do they all say `shtoop' and `meshuganah' in their daily vocabulary? Isn't there more important stuff that we should know about the culture?I saw this movie at a Jewish community center in Berkeley, CA, and I was the only person in the room whose hair was not fully gray or white. (I have no gray or white hair.) There were 18 of us, and after the movie they stayed for about 20 minutes to discuss the movie. There were 2 main concerns expressed there: 1. The movie was way too light-hearted and future generations might not understand the gravity of what happened and 2. As the Holocaust survivors are dying off, future generations will not know what really happened. I thought that this second concern was ridiculous and I told them I thought they didn't need to worry because there is tons of literature out there and there will always be people who like to watch movies, like myself. The murder of 6,000,000 people by a very bad man will not ever be forgotten. I write this last paragraph because they charged me with telling others about my experience that day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e614287323a41bc9b4515ec330f2fd9", "input": "Review: Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The \"witty\" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a \"ho\"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0b89356833f498289992c5f5b1cc95a", "input": "Review: To all the reviewers on this page, I would have to say this movie is worth seeing. So It was made in 1972, so what. The fashion in the movie was exactly the same fashion of its time. People who didn't study culture of the decades would think that this movie is a cheese ball. Compared to the modern series, `Left Behind,' (Which is made for our time right now) it does look cheezy. However, the only cheezy part of the movie is the fashion, which again was over 30 years in the past. BUT. The message that is sent in this film is very powerful, and carefully preserved. There is just so much to say, but I refuse to say it. (for fear of spoiling it) So go out and see this film! If you don't like the message that it sends, then you have issues, that need some attention! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d39abf4732674436a4a31f5670d568ce", "input": "Review: After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e743236a7214a5bbc768d19a781a526", "input": "Review: The original title means \"The Birth of the Octopuses\". I must confess that I do not quite understand this title. The English title is \"Water Lilies\". But after having written this, I read the comment by another user: \"The title in French is also suggestive: \"prieuve\", or octopus, suggest an individual having to juggle many pressures simultaneously.\" Thanks for your explanation.The basic theme is the first sexual emotions of girls, when it is not clear if they are directed toward the same or the other sex. It is no different for boys. I think that both Floriane and Marie will eventually have heterosexual feelings without any admixtures.Much of the movie is water ballet. Sometimes the girls will have their heads downwards, and nothing above the water except their feet and lowers legs, with which they will wave and kick in the air. To people like me who had never seen such things before, it was fascinating. - Floriane is the leader of one team of \"water lilies\". Marie tells her that she would like to see when Floriane is training. This seems to be their first contact that is not just ordinary. Soon they will walk together. Floriane takes Marie to a garage where a boy is waiting for her, and then goes away with him for an hour, while Marie is waiting for her to return. I took for granted that the couple slept with each other. But we will later learn from the movie that they do less than that. I can supply some information which few users will find elsewhere. There is a scene in which Marie secretly steals Floriane's garbage bag. In it she finds an apple, mostly eaten. And Marie proceeds to eat the rest. – There is a parallel scene in another movie, \"Kazetachi no gogo\" (Afternoon Breezes) by Hitoshi Yazaki (Japan, 1980). This is about adult young females, and a clearly Lesbian woman is vainly in love with a heterosexual woman. She also steals a garbage bag of the beloved, and also finds a more or less eaten apple and eats the rest. Later Floriane tells Marie that she would like to have her first orgasm from her. Marie says she cannot do this. But still later Marie says that she is indeed willing to do it. And she masturbates on Floriane. There is no nudity in this scene. Probably only a female director could have made such a fine psychological show or study of – I would like to quote Baudelaire, \"Les amours enfantines\".Floriane is played by Adèle Haenel, who made the excellent performance as the autistic girl in \"The Little Devils\" by Christophe Ruggia (2002) – a very underrated movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-80f8d5e2b3eb43399d8fafee09d63d7d", "input": "Review: STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? \"The phone rang. The phone rang again.\" How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, \"It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK.\" An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac0fd9a9da1f406685105a42da53a6a7", "input": "Review: Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics – 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' – and still comes out empty-handed.Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle \"the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you\" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91a7f401527f4d84a7fa16c08002213f", "input": "Review: (Spoilers)I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.Too bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2820f33d2ca6477db8469e089a65a98e", "input": "Review: This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-145313a0f4e04588affee125d8ce04a9", "input": "Review: I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the \"silly\" or \"stupid\" choices. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee79603d4f90481d942840bdbbd7336a", "input": "Review: This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates \"One... Two... Three... Four...\" as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59b299fc1a854fecbc2b4d43baa1d997", "input": "Review: I gave it an 8 star rating. The story may have fallen short about 3/4 of the way into the picture but the performances remained strong throughout.\"Men of Honor\" was changed from \"Navy Diver\" understandably so. Anyone who has served in any branch of the armed forces will probably feel that \"Honor\" is an appropriate word to use in the title. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08c4228eaf47455db6fc16b9ee2f55cf", "input": "Review: I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72257a31b1bf49a6bc0a69c52545b51f", "input": "Review: Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d2987071d71423d93e8b5cfa23b40e2", "input": "Review: This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal – marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches – but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star – Franchot Tone – packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor – he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead – Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945) – is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr. – the genre's quintessential fall guy – as an ill-fated \"ladies' man\" of a percussionist.Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction – all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York – which results in his being mowed down by a car! Notable, too, is the trial sequence – which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone \"dizzy spells\". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt – and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film – in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater – the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2ad09cb21c84bcb977a9ac2c1490fb5", "input": "Review: Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a \"genetic breakthrough\" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening \"Primal Park\", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77e2f2e917bc4930bcf500710fbfc969", "input": "Review: This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding \"the bug\". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ebdb39452244640bb3f31dccbb572dd", "input": "Review: the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb14ce93d6fb4d13a74c267b65f0f6cf", "input": "Review: Powers Booth is hypnotic as cult leader jim jones who led his Peoples Temple followers from 1953 until 1978 when he led them in a mass suicide in 1978 where over 900 died. A very well done movie which may seem a little dated due to the 70s time period but well worth the time 8 of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68b9673fc55a47ffaaa182b58b8b2fbc", "input": "Review: I loved watching ''Sea Hunt '' back in the day , I was in grammar school and would get home do my homework and by 4:30 would be ready to watch ''Sea Hunt '' and Mike Nelson in his underwater adventures .I loved it ! He took to you a place not very accessible at that time , under the great blue sea . Pre ''Thunderball '' or even before Cousteau became common , there was Mike Nelson sparking the imagination of kids .I'd be willing to wager that more than a few kids developed their passion for oceanography or biology or one of the sciences from watching this show .Underwater photography also progressed , the fascination for exploration is easily stimulated thru watching this show . Watch and enjoy !!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90052ed23a964230ac975782bab85b7b", "input": "Review: If in the 90's you're adapting a book written in the 50's, set the bloody thing in the 50's and not the '90's. See, 40 year old mores and values tend not to play as well, or ring as true, that far down the road. It's a simple rule that Hollywood habitually keeps violating. And that's the problem with this film. It should have been set in the era it was written in. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but nooo. I'd elaborate, but bmacv's comment spells it out quite well. I'll limit my commentary to Rachel Ward. She looks like she dieted her ass completely out of existence for this role. As a result, she looks like a crack ho' on chemotherapy, and is about as sexy as a gay leather couch in drag. I found her \"I could die at any moment\" look quite disconcerting, and it greatly detracted from her supposed \"hotness\" and the \"sexual tension\" the film intended to create. Other than that, the film was quite good; a 7+ out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b02d4bf29d5f4619ab4c1b80ee4d5a65", "input": "Review: First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three \"American Pie Presents\" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?I also have a few other questions too.Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer \"I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares\" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-214f20ee390844838ceb9eec58396fcb", "input": "Review: Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become \"Alias Smith and Jones\". Mr. Wayne becomes \"John Jones\". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be \"Rev. Smith\", but Wayne calls him \"Dr. Smith\". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in \"Our Gang\", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed8cb112a3894efb9489e90545b9c47a", "input": "Review: Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did \"Attack of the THE Eye Creatures\" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's \"eh-I-grew-out-of-it\" conspiracy drawer, here's \"Down On Us (i.e.- \"Beyond the Doors\") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the \"twist\" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.But like the man said: \"Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll.\"Not this flick, though.No stars for \"Down on Us\". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-636b387b409141b3b41aa3d00be477bc", "input": "Review: I was very moved by the story and because I am going through something similar with my own parents, I really connected. It is so easy to forget that someone whose body is failing was once vibrant and passionate. And then there's the mistakes they made and have to live with. I loved Ellen Burstyn's performance and who is Christine Horne? She's fantastic! A real find. There is probably the most erotic scene I've ever seen in a film, yet nothing was shown - it was just so beautifully done. Overall the look and feel of the film was stunning, a real emotional journey. Cole Hauser is very very good in this picture, he humanizes a man spiraling downwards. I liked the way the filmmaker approached this woman's life, never sentimental, never too much - just enough to hook us in, but not enough to bog down. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27415653dc2b4bdea80ff92250345dfa", "input": "Review: I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ad6ff736d444e58aeca8285cd6cf836", "input": "Review: This is what makes me proud to be British. This is by far the funniest thing on TV. The league consists of Jeremy dyson, Steve pemberton, mark gatiss and the lovely Reece shearsmith. Totally underrated, this horror-comedy is perfection. The characters are iconic and the catchphrases bizarre, \"Hello Dave\". It is a comedy that everyone simply must watch.The best thing about the league of gentlemen is that it is always fresh, and always pushing the boundaries. It does not need to rely on catchphrases(unlike little Britain) for it to be funny. the fact that the league are willing to kill off arguably their most famous and iconic characters, shows us that they've got balls of steel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aaeb97ca3f254a579ba5961afd2cab4e", "input": "Review: The Cat in the Hat is just a slap in the face film. Mike Myers as The Cat in the Hat is downright not funny and Mike Myers could not have been any worse. This is his worst film he has ever been in. The acting and the story was just terrible. I mean how could they make the most beloved stories by Dr. Seuss be made into film and being one of the worst films of all-time and such a disappointment. I couldn't have seen a more worst film than this besides, maybe Baby Geniuses. But this film is just so bad I can't even describe how badly they made this film. Bo Welch should be fired or the writer should. Hedeen's outlook: 0/10 No Stars F Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-700551477694457b914d8bc8dcde4bec", "input": "Review: I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.I was a great fan of the film \"Stargate\" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-83f79c917e75441581e4b064c1e51af8", "input": "Review: Warner Bros. made many potboilers in the 1930s and most of them are fast paced, economical and very entertaining. I really love how the studio exploited the less glamorous elements of our daily life. This is one of Warner's few hard-edged melodramas that simply doesn't work. Edward G. Robinson plays a ruthless editor of newspaper who resurrects the 20-year old story of a murderess with tragic consequences. Robinson gives a lively performance but he is surrounded by actors that don't cut the mustard. H.B. Warner, Aline MacMahon and Boris Karloff are good, but the bad acting of Frances Starr and Anthony Bushell in the second leads really hurts the movie. Starr is particularly bad during her big dramatic scene near the end of the movie. In addition, the moralistic tone of the film seems ridiculous in the context of pre-code Hollywood. LeRoy's direction is full of innovative visual touches but he cannot overcome the bad acting and the unintentionally funny situations. Sol Polito's camera work is strong. Somehow, this piece of dreck got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (in a year that gave us \"M,\" \"Dracula\" and \"Frankenstein\"). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47f9bbaad69649d487a9fcb3076d0339", "input": "Review: When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe04082f346240b9b8c4c786089726e8", "input": "Review: This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90940db5516540da87b90ae85e7eabc7", "input": "Review: Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.Don't believe me?links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bf5bb641dce47de91a1c6709c524f80", "input": "Review: Sort of family parody blending \"An Officer And A Gentleman\", \"Heartbreak Ridge\", \"Full Metal Jacket\" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09f34c9669c3471abd9710d6aba26d9d", "input": "Review: I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ed7fcc29ca44f699ca3e0a1fded26e5", "input": "Review: I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-322c0c4bb988492b84429833f4184280", "input": "Review: The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b84a7b7d409e41329d86604b3ee50930", "input": "Review: Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb0ce14848864218901b44efb72e202e", "input": "Review: Mesmerizing, breathtaking and horrifying, this hauntingly beautiful film is the \"Apocalypse Now\" without fiction. Slow in pace, quiet in mood, it gives good glimpses of the poisoned patches of Earth that may well be signs of an inevitable doom.There is no doubt in my mind -- the nature is plagued and we are the disease. Greed, the very essence of humanity that drives evolution and progress, has turned us into something like cancer, on its way to consume the host and die with it...Manufactured Landscapes is quite an unforgettable viewing experience - at least I'll never regard my toaster and iron the same way again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-568be32bf9664da388e3a890072f775b", "input": "Review: One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an \"arthouse\" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62d902fce8704a65bfa91b1b975e13d4", "input": "Review: \"Raising Victor Vargas\" is one of those light, family movies that you can watch and do the N.Y. Times crossword puzzle at the same time. And if you want to go to the kitchen for a taco and a Corona, you don't have to \"Pause\" the DVD. Just let it roll, 'cause you won't be missing anything really important. No twists, turns, or tension. It's not really an ethnic movie, it's a movie about a poor, struggling immigrant family that happens to be Latino. They could have been any ethnic group. It made very little difference. I've seen it all a zillion times before. Just plug in a Jewish family, an Italian family, a Black family, or an Irish family. Just the accents and names were different. If the Vargas family was named Bush or Clinton and were Presbyterians, the movie would have been a total snooze. It's funny that the critics here couldn't get the locale straight. Some said it was Spanish Harlem. Some the Bronx, and another Brooklyn. As a life-long New Yorker, I vote for the Lower East Side. And it seemed that the family never met up with anyone except other Latinos. They lived in an insulated/isolated little enclave. Some interaction with non-Latinos might have created some excitement, interest, or tension. Remember West Side Story?And now for the oft-criticized cinematography. I don't know if it was my TV or what, but all the indoor shots looked very ORANGE to me. The apt, the furniture, and the faces were all ORANGE. What was that supposed to mean? And the apt. did look pretty cramped to me. Somebody here mentioned that the old apt's/tenements had very big rooms. Well, maybe 50 years ago. What landlords have done is to break up one big apt into 2 or 3 very small ones and squeeze as many immigrants as they can into them. And another annoying thing ....This is the second family movie I've seen and criticized this week that featured a teenage boy \"jerking off\". Is this private sex act necessary for us to watch? Please spare me! What's up with these directors? So \"Victor Vargas\" is a pleasant little movie. It was nice for a change to see young Latino actors given a break and a chance to show their talents, which they did. But the writers let them down, giving them a flat, unspectacular script to work with. Enjoy the show, but keep your fingers near the \"fast forward\" button. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-349b2aa04f5d4f2db710e556a0e537dd", "input": "Review: Arthur Bach needs to grow up, but that is unfortunately not the only thing he needs to do. According to his extremely rich father, Arthur has to marry a certain wealthy Susan Johnson or he's cut off from the family money ($750 million dollars worth). The problem is, Arthur doesn't love Susan (though I hear she makes some good chicken) and has just fallen head-over-heels for the waitress and part-time shop-lifter Linda Marolla. Arthur is an interesting fellow. He's really just a big kid, born into riches with at least one person looking after him every second of every day. Working just rubs Arthur the wrong way - he likes to have fun, womanize, and of course, drink. Drinking gives Arthur a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde complex; and while that gets him into all sorts of trouble, it's absolutely hilarious to watch on screen. Dudley Moore is great here in this film as Arthur, earning an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for his performance. Moore is fantastic with the comedic aspects of the film, turning the already funny lines into unforgettable comedic gold, but he is also great in bringing Arthur down to a relatable level and making the character likable. Moore has some help in the co-star department - Liza Minnelli is great as Lina, the spirited nobody who Arthur can't get enough of, and John Gielgud is terrific as Arthur's butler Hobson. Gielgud won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance in this film, and there's no doubting why. Hobson has a stone-solid dry wit and stuck up attitude, but he's always looking out for Arthur - and Gielgud is perfect in the role. Steve Gordon's 1981 film Arthur is short and simple, but delivers laughs a-plenty. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a7615784e6842afa8c2217285f5fe61", "input": "Review: Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-890383b2bec0421fb02a4bc03c522fc8", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on \"true\" stories because they usually distort the \"true\" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their \"nice and perfect\" persona looked difficult to keep up.This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b085acd7a3c48f992368f9ff3543c13", "input": "Review: I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.I don't recommend this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc64dcc6d8084f2e9185da5444093503", "input": "Review: Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this..\"can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!\". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a \"so bad it's good\" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c836b93924b541a2b6356dac94bbbbae", "input": "Review: I wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. For me, the plot was a bit confusing to follow and I rapidly lost interest. I feel so sorry for John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff for getting involved with this movie. I'll remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. The one thing I can say positively about the film is that Hillary played Yonica's character so well that I didn't even recognize Hillary; it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. Luckily I rented it for $1 through Red Box; had I paid to see it in on the big screen, I would be really fuming!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9671688d0f1406eb4a9ed35f970085c", "input": "Review: This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28779bb8309f44269b652cbe7a464281", "input": "Review: Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow \"beautiful\". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-35ce3f95943549ecbae93e41bc0f8d43", "input": "Review: Yes, the plot is predictable; yes, there are a few plot holes; yes, it has a made-for-TV quality; and yes, Britney Spears \"wrote\" the book with obvious self-promotion.But forget all of that... this movie is fun.Fun in an After School Special sort-of-way, but fun nevertheless.Virginia Madsen as the mother does a great job... so good that I'm going to start watching for her movies. She reminded me of Diane Lane for all the good reasons.The rest of the cast does a fine job, too. If I was a casting agent, I'd be scouting some of these young actors.The production values are above usual TV standards and the music was really great... better than several big-budget movies I've seen.If you're in the mood for German noir this movie isn't for you. If you want a safe, fun and underrated movie, this is a good one. It's one you could show to your 10 year old daughter but enjoy it yourself too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54e42e233b7c4b0fb24626f1d6fa2a6a", "input": "Review: Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4b322c91ba640908b41c426a5e42f50", "input": "Review: This movie has made me want to become a director, and Michelle Rodriguez is brilliant. How the hell wasn't she on mtv's top 25 under 25, she beats them all. This film definitely deserved the grand jury prize at sundance, best film i have ever seen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4467570e8c3f4e2ca31129976fd477ce", "input": "Review: What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.It gets a 9/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1e4b1e519e44ad18d501405bf5d3c43", "input": "Review: WOW! What - a - movie !!!!!!!!!!! I'm not at all a fan of contemporary Italian directors. Usually I don't like dramas. I am not a Will Smith super fan even thinking that he is a very good actor......but this movie ! It is such a great movie with a such original script and so good direction and so well acting...wow...it is stunning. This movie captured my attention minute by minute and I even did not like \"The pursuit of happiness\" (maybe also because i did not like the acting of Will's son who is a very bad actor while children usually seems all natural born actors, I saw him also last night in \"The day the earth stood still\" and I confirmed my sensation that Jaden can't act). I don't want to write spoilers and so i don't talk about the story but what I can say is that this movie talks about Love, Death and other feelings which i don't like to watch in movies....but THIS MOVIE is such a super great movie. If you have a minimum of heart you'll don't regret watching it Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7411f00ea95b4775bc1ad0fe2d5c721c", "input": "Review: This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe57fd9e9d1249f291ba7d7b597f5c01", "input": "Review: Tarzan and his mate(1934) was the only Tarzan movie I didn't see when I was a kid. It sounded boring. Now I have seen it. I have seen the ape man(1932) about a hundred times and I keep a copy on my drive. It's a remarkable movie. It's almost flawless. Tarzan and his mate(1934) however, falters. It's not harmonic and it's parts tend to live a life of there own. The parts themselves are often very good and the action sequences are great. Big budget expensive. Tarzan himself is co-starring. Jane dominates. She have developed and have become a jungle girl so sexy I tend to forget about criticism and sing her praise instead. Well. She let her be duped by a crock who steels a kiss from her and later murder an elephant. She insists Tarzan to carry a bracelet who belonged to her father. Forever. The thing would split to pieces the moment he went about his businesses in the jungle. Stupid? Later someone founds it in the river. Well it's supposed to proof Tarzan is dead. Some cheap drama. The crocks who has an obvious interest in a dead Tarzan convince Jane that he is gone. She takes their words for granted and want to be taken away(to England). Stupid Jane seems to have forgot how tough Tarzan is, how hard he is to kill. The caravan is leaving and Jane go along. Again a pothole. She could easily make the caravan rest for a few hours or more, to pick up a few things and say goodbye to the jungle and her dead husband. She could be smart. She could dive where they found the floating bracelet, check the banks for traces. She can make fire in 15 seconds and swing in Liana's. Picking up traces shouldn't be too hard for jungle Jane. She could talk to the apes, and so on. If she get home to England without have done this she would become miserable. Jane is smart but cheap drama brings her down. And why on earth is she letting the kiss rapist get away with \"I blame myself as much as you\". A punishment for being vane perhaps? Nonsense. Struggle, a hard slap and telling Tarzan would be appropriate. Still. This movie is far from bad even if the potholes are many and sometimes deep. Just lean back and enjoy. It's Tarzan and Jane for God sake. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e856825b46f4f4dbe597334907af25a", "input": "Review: This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.It's probably only considered a classic because \"A Christmas Carol\" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f6b4a6292a2407d83ac8cf8441f15ec", "input": "Review: I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that \"Préte-moi ta main\" has plenty of flaws.My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment \"of romance\" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f059bd9de0954a829ef54b56a4499f6a", "input": "Review: Some gorehound-friends recommended \"Live Feed\" to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models \"Hostel\" and \"Saw\") with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. \"Live Feed\" is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ac443f15e2045c6bd655df4e14d6d85", "input": "Review: The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.Rating: 6/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-271954327e1248d9aebdb0895ee196c3", "input": "Review: This excellent drama had me in suspense the whole time. I could not take my eyes off the screen for one second because every word kept connecting the pieces to this puzzling murder. This movie really touched me because it showed how sad and hard life can be. I really did cry in the end (which I don't want to give away!) It also let me realize how cruel and sickening people can be when it comes to murder. The cast was also very good. The only bad cast member was the actress who played Anne Marie. The actress did a great job, but the director didn't. I say this because he found someone who didn't look a single bit like Anne Marie Fahey herself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4c3e25d31b1489894218cd8d3e66e43", "input": "Review: You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor \"Little Nikki\" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every \"Air Band\" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1e2384cc9cb42429261da0c0022f885", "input": "Review: Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey) International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.\"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare.\" - Officer (Brian Currie) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34a388f86d154323886bc63be84652f3", "input": "Review: First of all yes I'm white, so I try to tread lightly in the ever delicate subject of race... anyway... White People Hating Black people = BAD but Black People Hating White people = OK (because apparently we deserved it!!). where do i start? i wish i had something good to say about this movie aside unintended comedy scenes: the infamous scene were Ice Cube and co. get in a fight with some really big, really strong, really really angry and scary looking Neo-Nazis and win!!! the neo-Nazi where twice the size :), and the chase! the chase is priceless... This is NOT a movie about race, tolerance and understanding, it doesn't deliver... this is a racist movie that re-affirm all the cliché stereotypes, the white wimpy guy who gets manhandled by his black roommate automatically transform in a skinhead...cmon simply awful I do regret ever seeing it.Save your time and the dreadful experience of a poorly written ,poorly acted, dull and clearly biased picture, if you are into the subject, go and Rent American History X, now thats a movie Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a63a9d0f4920452288806ed5d14f3091", "input": "Review: \"The Kennel Murder Case\" starts off at a run and doesn't stop until the very end. Everybody had reason to kill the victim, and several people tried. William Powell is terrific as Philo Vance, gentleman detective. Mary Astor is refreshing as the put-upon niece who only wants to marry her Scottish gentleman and enjoy her inheritance. This movie comes paired with \"Nancy Drew, Reporter\" on DVD, which is also fun. If you have to rent the disc (or check it out from your local library), do it. It's pure entertainment! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-817b73a3380f4f6aac885325672474e8", "input": "Review: ...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say \"It's for you\". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34703111307841cd9ed30956c72466f8", "input": "Review: I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? 1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! 2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in \"Rambo II\" look mundane!! 3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1447863ef53a4c36b7adb1030d59ca8d", "input": "Review: Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" aka. \"The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale\" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant \"Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key\" of 1972, followed by \"Torso\" (1973) and \"The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh\" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...\"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail\" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-845c17d893864d65becf798329253b5f", "input": "Review: Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30e3dfe9600f4b0a9c702dfd1c982da8", "input": "Review: talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially \"The Squeeze\" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in \"Pacific Heights\" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed \"Multiplicity\". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of \"Batman\" .. and i kind of liked \"Night Shift\" and i love \"Johnny Dangerously\" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-253980b144f645c19757146764cffe99", "input": "Review: \"Stella\", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and…..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-125e1dcc764b4a10bb35560783668390", "input": "Review: Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the \"actors\" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the \"film\", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The \"special effects\" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this \"film\" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66d2d9d678554f50838db0a6c8dbfae2", "input": "Review: i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30c101ff2c054f77b2e7385d5192baae", "input": "Review: 1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection – Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it – they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger. The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly – no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b0fcb1784044922b3b43ef9018cf0eb", "input": "Review: This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say \"horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)\"? Don't get me started with the \"dead child\". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.< Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7fe57561aa1433687e300fe8bdab58c", "input": "Review: Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this \"extra\" disc.Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline! Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe9033cb07c74226a339e737714d4600", "input": "Review: Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce0453e58b43497593123fe16d64fa9c", "input": "Review: I drove from Sacramento to San Francisco (and back) to see this movie premiere--and really glad I did. As a big movie fan and a life-long Northern Californian, I was surprised how many Oscar-winning films have been made in the Bay Area. As a fashion designer who really wants to stay in the Bay Area as opposed to going to LA, George Lucas' comments about persistence, community and having a vision really resonated with me. Hey, if he and all the other filmmakers can make it in SF, so can other artists. Would recommend this film Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b042b45670a4272999ff40e186eeb41", "input": "Review: In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd376e2c5ebb4e59aed50faeebe0a5a2", "input": "Review: \"8 SIMPLE RULES... FOR DATING MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER,\" is my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure I haven't seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. It's hard to say which episode was my favorite. However, I think it was always funny when a mishap occurred. I always laughed at that. Despite the fact that James Garner and David Spade were good, I liked the show more when John Ritter was the leading man. If you ask me, his sudden passing was very tragic. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, I hope some network brings it back on the air for fans of the show to see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb9f8e1aec984394a30e48bc9252aa30", "input": "Review: In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. \"Amazon Women on the Moon\", \"Kentucky Fried Movie\", \"The Meaning of Life\", and \"Mr. Mike's Mondo Video\". Notice how I didn't mention \"Tunnel Vision\"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.My Grade: F Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-df03a301044e4b05af561ebab503028d", "input": "Review: This for me was a wonderful introduction to the talents and beauty of Marion Davies. She is not only gorgeous but hilarious in this film. (I believe that Lucille Ball may have modeled her later career on Davies' style, that could be termed \"zany beauty\".) Vidor's direction is light but sure-handed, the story is a chestnut of course but the acting is marvelously contemporary, and the star-watching element for fans of the silent era, with many cameos, adds to the overall fun. It combines the elements of slapstick with adult drama and good old timeless romance quite well. For all movie fans who have a knee-jerk reaction to watching silent films, sit through this one and it may change your attitude. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eaa5885e8c5842efa520cc0c42701384", "input": "Review: Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-004090e447f14fc7811879c35d38e0ba", "input": "Review: The most important thing about this movie is the brilliant performance by Daniel Day-Lewis and Hugh O'Conor as Christy Brown, guineas artist and fighter who despite of her physical condition overcame all the odds. As a person who did work with patients with cerebral palsy, I can assure you that their performance were shockingly convincing. The enormous support that Christy got form his family, low-income, working class Dubliners, encouraged him to do the impossible and this picture depicted this support brilliantly have not read the book, but the dialogs were written wisely to capture Christy Brown's witty arrogant personality. I do recommend this movie to everyone, especially to classic movie-lovers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36096f64e4444741b3462bf2d7a6144a", "input": "Review: There are 21 comments as I add mine to this list and there is barely a criticism. This is because this film is terrific entertainment and has a bit of everything in it.It is perhaps a little frightening for younger children but my 15-year old son thought it was fantastic in every way from the action, to the humour and even to the beautiful music score.I buy DVDs only when I know that they are going to be regularly watched and now that this is finally available in the UK, I will certainly be adding it to my collection. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73f29b193d8d4d608754f7b8fcd16d56", "input": "Review: For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these \"family films.\" In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes! This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. (\"Touchstone\" is Disney, just under another name.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0253534624c40fb933bd89b262b528e", "input": "Review: this movie has no plot, no character development, and no budget. it really sucks to put it in short terms. Since there is no development for the movie, it really can't even be looked as trying to be artistic or trying to make a statement against torture. Which leaves two other reasons to possibly watch it. To be shocked or to get off on it like a sick little freak. Well it falls short here too. The girl's reactions just seem dumb. it's extremely easy to tell that it's fake (honestly professional wrestling looks more realistic than the crap they try to get by with in this movie. They throw innards on her, but she's asleep for most of it, so it's just kinda dumb. The only really kind of worthwhile part is the end when they quickly cut from scene to scene just before the needle goes into her eye. But honestly the girl is extremely ugly and everything is incredibly fake, with the exception of the eye. if you want a good movie about torture, go watch Hostel and Hostel 2. Not only do they both contain realistic violence, but there is also an actual storyline that draws you in and makes you care about the people. Plus the tow movies really work on a deeper level considering themes like American fears of foreigners, issues of morality, testing how far a person can go, human instincts vs. civilization, and many other things. Plus they are carefully written and contain some good humor when the story isn't focused on the violence. These are much better choices over this piece of crap Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c257bb5ecad24ac390fb4e6ec4b76c33", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the \"hero\" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting \"hero\" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6ed8b08ae36494eb0f58a784fbf31f7", "input": "Review: Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a233ccbab6445b58204887852380535", "input": "Review: This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9967f19f42e45e583a281d6cde424b4", "input": "Review: This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky \"fixer\" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21ffe60cbea74bc484ff9142fe27b7ec", "input": "Review: Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* \"Kissing Cousins\" ?????? What kind of line is that? \"Slipery when wet\" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5cb1d519923c449eb9806c83f3ba5435", "input": "Review: Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current \"edgy film-making\". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.I know I didn't.Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-621ca794b28a45ca8f13a08eb1614343", "input": "Review: I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-62fdf6c2323b4d09b3971f270fee89c8", "input": "Review: This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned \"nemesis\", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-404b40a2ece4460db3d5b4295a4a4a2b", "input": "Review: This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, \"Oh...highly polished mahogany!\"Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are \"regular\" people in other shorts.For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e435506926ee405b8863ed70f695144a", "input": "Review: The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b73ebf42ea5a496fb03e9d442ad0a563", "input": "Review: If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-313f9c651c3a491ba78a03dcf4e579a6", "input": "Review: B Movie? Yes. DIY? Yes. First Movie? Yes. But Aestheically A+. This movie definitely had some bad sound/editing/lighting/acting/etc. etc. problems. However, this movie has many positive things about it. First off, the most annoying character dies first! Second, its made to be a parody/funny B Rated Horror movie. The comments our killer makes to his victims left me and my friends rolling around on the floor laughing.The problem is a lot of people try to take every independent movie and expect it to be a masterpiece. Take it for what it is, a bunch of kids right out of high school made their first movie. For what it is, just that, it is really good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd64732215354c79866c39d515952623", "input": "Review: This is one very confusing movie. The film is very hard to follow and the plot just didn't seem to make any sense. The Fury of the Wolfman was made in Spain and I think that when any film is dubbed from one language to another, it doesn't translate exactly as it was first meant. Maybe this is part of the problem but I doubt if it can account for all the problems with this film. The dubbing is pretty bad and the voices don't match the characters very well. The scenes are choppy, there is an array of strange and irrelevant characters that do little more than confuse the viewer even more. What I did like about this film was the look of the wolfman himself and the scenes where he attacks. Now if they could have put it all together and had it make some sense, they might have had something. Don't waste your time on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0bc607673904dfba7329e1cb2e1e887", "input": "Review: I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like \"we want to make sure they are playing for the right team\" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dec9e247df7b403ca8254cdb1e24d649", "input": "Review: While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6321aedad26f4444a1ae3ba90351a1f1", "input": "Review: This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b196f278cc454a668953233c3694ca8a", "input": "Review: In 1990 Brad Pitt and Juiliette Lewis did a TV Too Young To Die where both played the almost the same kind of parts that they do in Kalifornia. I have no doubt that is what led to their casting in this big screen film.Kalifornia finds aspiring writer David Duchovny and his girl friend, art photographer Michelle Forbes on a rocky relationship of sorts due to Duchovny's obsession with writing a book and getting in the minds and souls of serial killers. In fact he's got a most unusual odyssey planned, he wants to go cross country and visit the sites of several famous serial killers. But he and Forbes are flat broke.Fate intervenes in more ways than financial with the arrival of Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis a pair of strange southern types who agree to split the cost of gas on this cross country trip. It turns out Pitt is a serial killer himself and he decides to do a little research on his own, delving into the mind of someone who is fascinated with amorality.Kalifornia is not the type of film I usually go for, but in fact the acting ability and charisma of Brad Pitt make it work to a large degree. Pitt is the walking definition of an inbred Gothic refugee from Deliverance. But better than he is is Juliette Lewis who once again is playing these low self esteem types which she seems to do well. Watch her scene with Forbes as she does her hair and Lewis describes her sad and pathetic life. Lewis's dialog and Forbes's reactions ought to be shown in acting classes around the country.For those who like their slasher flicks, they don't come better than Kalifornia. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb8db6b452124b208b53f9d7241d87b0", "input": "Review: When I first saw this film on cable, it instantly became one of my favorite movies. I'm a big fan of James Earl Jones and Robert Duvall. The movie paints an accurate picture of the South and the racist attitudes. Most of the attitudes came from Soll, an old plantation owner who uses convicts for labor. Soll is what makes the move, his funny ramblings give us insights in to the way The South was back then. I suppose that if Soll lived today he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. None the less his attitudes towards a little boy who comes to work for him and the convicts is complex. While he has racist views, he's grown to trust some of the convicts who are all black. The two convicts he trusts most are Jackson(Mel Winkler) and Ben(James Earl Jones). The conversations between Ben and Soll are the best in the movie, they have real chemistry. James Earl Jones and Mel Winkler both but in great performances as well as Hass.This movie should have gotten more notoriety. However it's on DVD and worth the money.Rayvyn Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3efafa497f04a2dbdd61ed532713a00", "input": "Review: I'm a fan of Columbo, especially on a rainy Saturday, and it was fun to see Oskar Werner after Fahrenheit 451, but this episode was very lacking. The original plot and plot twists were obvious and could be guessed way in advance, even years before the modern detective shows of today. But it was amusing to see the crazy couch patterns and \"modern\" electronics equipment and, of course, the mandatory suburbanite humor poking fun at modern art for sale. The high-tech home is a Jetson's or Disney version of Tomorrowland, and fun to think of writers inventing those \"way-out gizmos\".If its sunny outside, go play, as there are much better Columbo episodes. Still, we should be thankful for Cable TV that these episodes are being broadcast. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81dd38247f8e4da69073f5029984ca0c", "input": "Review: I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9965a64956f845348bcfe7c328528ca2", "input": "Review: The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great \"white house\", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner \"cleaning\" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-575852a9583b4eaaaa4d6a423564461a", "input": "Review: the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats \"dole scum\" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-25ac4b0dea114bb59987ecfb699a917f", "input": "Review: Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and LanguageMy MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and LanguageMy Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87e04f023a224b418ea1e5701d9c0657", "input": "Review: Kalifornia came out in 1993, just as 3 of the 4 lead characters were up and coming to the levels of fame they now possess in 2006. This is a nice psycho-thriller that should appeal to all David Duchovny fans because of his dry and intelligent narratives that find their ways into his work, like with most of his episodes of the X-Files, Playing God, and Red Shoe Diaries.People who were put off by the heavy southern accent from Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis' characters obviously have never spent much time in the south. For every \"Brian and Carrie\" in the south, there is an \"Adele and Early\" and in 2006, that's the real horror of this flick.Aside from that, I think the film was written with a cult film intention - like with Carrie's photography, it's not suitable for mass consumption. But if you have a copy of this in your personal library, I think it says something positive about your tastes for freaky movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-250fe8ce6fec46fc9bd769544905dcb1", "input": "Review: It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful \"Ninotchka\" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's \"Camille\", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the \"chica-choca\" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-677b8f4d053f482e96779dbaac146e25", "input": "Review: Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a331ca8634eb41e0b676495c83270900", "input": "Review: Worth watching twice because of the rapid-paced causal shifts among several compelling stories, \"Bug\" emerges as a wholly satisfying work of art that plays ever-optimistic love against myriad examples of frustrating reality.My favorite characters are Wallace (John Carroll Lynch)whose overriding concern for life--from that of a cockroach to the airline passengers for whom he is partially responsible--frames the film; Olive (Christina Kirk), who spends considerable time creating surreal but tasty meals for her impossible husband Ernie (Chris Bauer); and Mitchell, a cable TV technician with unbounded trust in fortune cookie messages: \"You will meet the girl of your dreams.\"Against such optimism are the forces of quirky reality, all generated by actions of the characters: parking tickets, a clogged drain in a Chinese food/donut shop, TV disruption, a crushed auto fender, an obliterated dinner reservation that eventually results in cancellation of a Hawaiian vacation.The film is funny: Olive getting drunk at a Chippendale performance, Johnston (Michael Hitchcock)as a customer service rep attempting to deal with an irate customer, the germ-obsessive Cyr (Brian Cox) facing a restaurant inspector, Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) reacting to his girlfriend's refusal to have children by writing hostile Chinese cookie fortunes: \"Your girlfriend is lying to you\" and the guy who falls asleep while manning a jackhammer because he spent the night looking for his girlfriend's missing cat.A minor story with public cable access host (Darryl Theirse) and a local acting teacher reading from \"The Boy in the Bubble\" expresses the major theme: love comes from the heart.\"Bug\" entertains on much the same level as \"trains, planes and automobiles\" but on a lower budget and with a fresher eye. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4bcd662693749388fdd945767a5add4", "input": "Review: I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7774461b10ba4c36ada92bb7cfdb5295", "input": "Review: I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus. First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.So, if you don't care at all about the following: - acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were). - theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others). - soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script). - scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and \"women,\" this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-918f6096199d45d58fef9edad2e55f8c", "input": "Review: when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc07d302de6e46d59bd34656b373f904", "input": "Review: With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d394b88d01e94798ac56654ffe379918", "input": "Review: Although this is generally a cheesy jungle-adventure movie, it does have some highlights - the settings are quite beautiful, and the pacing of the adventure is good. You won't be bored watching it.Keith is as breezy as possible playing the eponymous lead, an unabashedly drunk jungle guide shanghai'd into escorting rich boy Van Hoffman and his gorgeous wife Shower on a hunting expedition in cannibal country. He never takes things seriously . Shower is there as decoration and Keith makes extensive use of her - she doesn't really have to act much. She's not the only female to show off her body and the prurient aspects of the film make it about halfway to a T/A picture.There's nothing in this film that would draw specific attention to it, or away from it. Produced to be shlock, it succeeds without too much fuss. A good 2 AM cable programmer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-466c7d7bb00f4c2884707b9c19650d88", "input": "Review: Wow... what... a whirlwind. The 30's is a decade with plenty of movies of every type I can imagine, especially during the early talkies phase. There were movies which are painfully static and dull, like \"Dracula\" with Bella Lugosi, and there were those that just don't give it a rest, sometimes in a good way and other times not. This is one of the films that don't stop for a minute, and that is both a wonder and a pity. Lloyd Bacon, who also directed \"42nd Street\", must have been the king of the Depression Era musicals and he was probably excited with the possibilities sound brought to the world of cinema, for he filled this picture with it. There mustn't be a full minute or two without music or someone speaking. It's completely crazy! I was thinking the movie deserved a 5 (or a 6, tops) because the pacing was very poor, since it was insanely fast and I sometimes didn't know what was happening and what to think. The characters seemed to just running to and fro places, talking about things which didn't interest me and probably no one else. I thought I was just going to be rewarded with a small headache. I noticed Lloyd Bacon also cast the female lead in \"42nd Street\", Ruby Keeler, and \"42nd Street\" was a movie whose ending was the best part of it. And you know what? It happened the same thing with \"Footlight Parade\"! The ending is absolutely incredible! It has become, hands down, the most impressive musical I have ever seen. The final part presents us some musical numbers and those are, believe me, something that make seeing the other rest of the movie worth. The numbers are flawless! There are three big bits and the most impressive is surely the second one. Suddenly the screen was filled with gorgeous and inventive camera work, beautiful people and plain entertainment that made me forget my small headache. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-166b18da4025400ca6f785f9df794317", "input": "Review: This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-300b440dfcc64a7382d8537c6078226e", "input": "Review: This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking \"huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?\" or \"so how did that aspect of the character come about?\" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d914ea2f266e4e3bb0c634799c70857d", "input": "Review: Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-544a44f410f24134ad6ca62fbe6be18d", "input": "Review: (aka: DEMONS III)Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee. The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.3 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ffd3ac8934a4de3a2b36c77d7d38823", "input": "Review: Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)One saving grace was a song performed at the \"talent show\" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called \"I'm A Heat Seeking Missile\". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a \"so bad it's good\" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. Rating: 1 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21e30ea125a446699a482e9bd8812162", "input": "Review: Finally got to see this classic TV movie on an unofficial disc recorded from an old VHS, it is a classic piece of horror. Its a pity more of this neglected corner of horror in terms of official releases on DVD and VHS ... the TV horror movie. Recommended for all fans of the 70's TV movie much like trilogy of terror. Those interested should get the book on the subject by David Deal - Television Fright Films of the 70's. Email me for a chance to see it.....its fabulous to see it again.It does have it problems like many TV movies they have to be rather inventive in the effects dept and even at 70 mins it can seem to drag possibly we are all used to more modern editing but still great stuff and far better than many theatrical frights released today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16ede7bfa6674f9b9d9f035aa28754f8", "input": "Review: I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad7ecbaf7fd744f19e4aeb8db3b3e05a", "input": "Review: The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. This is the job of television, not cinema. The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. \"Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do\" or whatever the line was. Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife \"I'm giving up smoking.\" An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3cec899142c42219985aef3cfb06bdd", "input": "Review: As always, controversial movies like this have mixed reviews. You either love it or you hate it, and not everyone will like this movie. This shows the perspective of the killers, which is something I personally feel is something important to consider. You may hate them, you may claim to understand them and feel as though you can relate, but regardless this movie will make you think about school shootings from a different perspective.The movie is shot entirely using a hand-held camera, something that I think works quite well as it makes it more realistic. It is told completely from the killers point of view, from their \"missions\" to family outings, all leading up the big day \"Zero Day\" in which they are planning on a massacre at their school. Zero Day does not offer answers, but merely presents a glimpse at the lives of two troubled young boys and lets the audience decide for themselves. Our feelings towards the boys are something mixed between sympathy and hatred, but yet we are left confused as to why two ordinary young boys would do such a thing. They are shown to be surprisingly normal, typical teenage boys leading ordinary lives, and if we didn't know what they were planning we wouldn't expect a thing (They make it clear throughout the whole movie that no-one else knows about their plan)The acting is extremely good considering the two actors are complete unknowns. We can only hope to see more work from the both of them in the future. Despite how this is a fictionalized movie, one cannot help but notice the obvious similarities to Columbine. Calvin and Andre are scarily similar to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, (not so much in looks, but in manner) As someone who has researched Columbine very extensively, I could see the similarities and it is almost certainly based on it. The actual massacre is shown through surveillance cameras at the school and is one of the most chilling things I have ever seen. I was completely in shock after seeing it, and its a feeling that stays around for a while. It is very realistic and well-done, and it is very difficult to watch.All in all Zero Day is an excellent movie, and I think everyone should at least check it out. In the past, we have always simply branded killers \"psychopaths\" and assumed that either they were biologically wired for disaster or had media influence, but as Zero Day shows sometimes the motives are deeper than that, and we can never truly understand why tragedies such as school shootings happen until we have seen it from the perspective of the killers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f51c3ab4cb9e4adb8f20ad266830a7a0", "input": "Review: Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a0acfa942b441188ae361a108dacd6e", "input": "Review: First of all, really Kim Basinger? Your rich banker husband leaves you alone in your beautiful, most likely paid in cash for home, and you can't even put on a decent shirt? I'm a woman, and yes, I'm going to come right out say it--clean something, starting with your hair. And while you're at it, it's Christmas Eve. Buy your kids some presents...or at least a Christmas tree. Don't drive 40 minutes to the crowded mall, park your car 3 miles away and cry about it the whole walk in, and simply buy wrapping paper. Also, the next time you decide to leave someone a nasty note, don't sign your name. I refuse to feel sorry for Della. Obviously, due to the fact that Kim Basinger is this masterpiece's executive producer, she wants you to feel bad for the poor white blond woman. We get it. Alec Baldwin is a jerk, but seriously, don't model horrible films after your own life. Also, you're in you 50s. You definitely wouldn't have 8 year old twins. AND THOSE NAMES? Terry and Tammy. Way to let your kids grow up with any decent chance of ever respecting themselves. It's also pretty fantastic to hear the characters in the film constantly call her beautiful or refer to her as a \"girl\"...obviously Ms. Basinger had some say about what goes in the script. It's also pretty awesome how none of the criminals can fight back. Apparently, Della's magical ninja skills are impossible to beat. Her driving skills are pretty nifty too. This film is so cliché, it hurts. Wahhhhh! They spelled your name wrong on the tea cup. Or your husband put a hole in the wall but all you can think about is buying nail polish when you're at the mall instead of maybe some plaster and paint. Or the woman you went to high school with bought the teddy you were looking at. Boohooo! The fact that she refuses to take off that BRIGHT trench coat while running through the woods screaming and breaking everything in her path proves my point--this woman is a moron. Who thinks to grab the toolbox out of the car, but not their purse, full of identifying artifacts such as your ADDRESS. I have never wanted the \"bad guys\" to succeed as much as when I watched this film. And did anyone else happen to catch the \"African American\" shirt the black guy was sporting? Oh yes, rewind and feast your eyes on perhaps the most racially stereotypical prop in a film yet. Don't waste and hour and twenty minutes of your life. Instead, go do what Della couldn't figure out how to do...take care of your kids, and maybe brush your hair. That powerful ballad at the end though was pretty impressive. Singing \"I'll Be Home For Christmas\" in the rain while your bloody arm clings oh so tightly to your wrapping paper is about as emotional as it gets. Thanks Della! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17df3e02486046bcbb2b5660735d49ed", "input": "Review: Ghost Story (the TV Movie--1972) was the pilot for the NBC series. The movie was well-written and well-acted and, I thought, when the 1972-73 tv season started, if the tv series is half as good as the movie, then NBC has a winner. (I wish this film was available on video!!) The series was a colossal disappointment--even with William Castle as exec. producer. If, however,you have a chance to see the original TV movie, Ghost Story, check it out. You won't be disappointed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76dacc0e10be415e910d8698b36e8e7d", "input": "Review: Paul Greengrass definitely saved the best Bourne for last! I've heard a lot of people complain about they way he filmed this movie, and some have even compared the camera style to the Blair Witch Project. All I have to say to that is...are you kidding me? Come on it was not that bad at all. I think it helps the action scenes to feel more realistic, which I would prefer over highly stylized stunt choreography. As for the rest of the movie I really didn't even notice it.You can tell that Damon has really gotten comfortable with the role of Jason Bourne. Sometimes that can be a bad thing, but in this case its a really good thing. He really becomes Jason Bourne in this installment. Damon also has a great supporting cast in Joan Allen, Ezra Kramer, and Julia Stiles. David Strathairn was a great addition to the cast, as he added more depth to the secret CIA organization.Even though the movie is filled with great car chases and nonstop action, they managed to stick a fair amount of character development in their with all of that going on. This film stands far above the other two Bourne movies, and is definitely one of the best movies of the 2007 summer season! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7820426e27284c0f96883f1899d22fe4", "input": "Review: Well, what can it be said about this disaster? I watched it because it aired on cable. I regret for wasting my time but at least I didn't waste money. The creature is the cheesiest you can get! Please, you need to be very generous not to get angered by the CHEAP Halloween costume. Oh well, there are also displays of horrible acting, f/x, and dialogues. The confrontation with the creature is unbelievable, you can't get a more pathetic scene. This is the worst you can get from direct to video flicks. \"Creature Unknown\" makes FULL MOON PICTURES movies look like \"Halloween\". Avoid this one at all costs, please. The only \"positive\" thing about this trash are the sexy women. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07295a0515094685addcfad3e869eb14", "input": "Review: When The Matrix appeared in 1999 and questioned existence and identity, it was expected that a lot of movies would use it as inspiration. That didn't really happen, surprisingly, and it took till 2002 for a movie of similar theme to appear. But to say Cypher is a clone would be to its discredit.The story is of a Morgan Sullivan, who applies for a job with a high-flying techno-company called Digicorp. His job is to be a spy and gain information about a rival company, while under an assumed and false identity. His home-life is perfectly normal but he has to lie to his wife about what he's actually doing. However, things start to take conspirital turns and before he knows what's going on, he starts to question who he actually is. This is not helped by a strange woman who turns up...Twists and turns at every direction keep you absolutely fascinated, and at no point does anything ever seem contrived or unbelievable.It's an enthralling journey through a not-too-distant future, and with good acting all round will keep you on the edge of your seat.Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aff12718be2e429d92c71421c3b7c45c", "input": "Review: In this glorious telling of a weekend shared among literary greats. Mary and Percy Shelly,Lord Byron and others created a entrancing group. Showing their quests for sexual enlightenment. Personal freedoms from political to moral. Liberal drug use for both stimulations and as addiction. Their creative views of life and writing. Describing without boring the viewer how each writer seeks to find their muse. Along with the distractions and affections each share. With breathtaking scenery that does not detract but very much enhances the story. Well created characters from grim to loving then angry to peaceful. With some of the most lovely and scene enhancing costuming to be had. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1d3d974ca7a4ac1a42446e457493199", "input": "Review: The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9808363c5c224700b59e3c84fe85bee3", "input": "Review: Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0258f1be4a6d403e8d9778aebeecf235", "input": "Review: Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-097040e5705042d2b9bbf023a146b602", "input": "Review: It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9329e396f5624549b428e8811159bf51", "input": "Review: I don't know whether to recommend this movie to the fans of \" Tetsuo \" or not . Why \" Tetsuo \" ? Because you can easily label some things about this movie as a very obvious \" Tetsuo \" rip - off . The concept is similar , editing is equally frantic and fast - which is good because , aside from making the movie more dynamic , it obscures some flaws caused by low budget and other factors .There is lot more gore , less eroticism and , in the case of \" Meatball machine \" , the transformation of human being into a creature that's partially a machine( sounds familiar ? ) called \" Necroborg \" ( very original ) is caused by slimy little aliens .These slimy little scums from outer space actually use human beings as vessels for their gladiator games that they play with each other . They infest the body , somehow manage to put an insane amount of mechanical parts in it pulling them seemingly out of nowhere and turn it into a killing machine that targets other Necroborgs . Their aim is to defeat another alien who is in another Necroborg , rip it out of the corpse and eat it .All in all , the plot sounds somewhat silly and I didn't expect much , but at the end I actually enjoyed this film .As I said before , this is a low budget flick , but it's still relatively decent . Don't expect much from actors , they're mostly not very good , but it can be tolerated . I liked the atmosphere and gore , certain bizarre situations and the way the movie is directed and edited . Although the story is not too original , it possesses certain charm - to me at least .7 out of 10 . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20b8a6fca6834f24a953cf946f40333f", "input": "Review: This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff .... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ac82d620d174e7181df17f8a2c1c175", "input": "Review: Why a good actress like Elizabeth Berkley stars in this commonplace movie???!!! The cast gives some good performance (Elizabeth Berkley as a Barbie girl, Ele Keats as a girl without mother and Justin Whalin, a guy eternally lessened by his bother), but the direction is extremely boring and the story is NOT so interesting and original. I can NOT believe that a movie like this was produced for the big screen! Julie Corman (the producer): are you CRAZY???!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7902edb098044a86bdb7fa2880b22fe5", "input": "Review: Then you must see this film, to understand the reality. Having read the book, Ms. Duke is now an advocate for those afflicted with bipolar disorder; formerly labeled manic-depression.It is hard to believe that in this day and age, people still critique others with emotional problems, or those who seek psychiatric help. Regressive and discriminatory thinking still exists, and this is unfortunate.In this film, the audience sees the pain and suffering Ms. Duke had been through, especially as a child. Many of us may remember her from the teenage \"Patty Duke Show\". She was a household name in America by age 15.You learn of her exploitation by the Ross'(well played by Howard Hesseman). As she was growing up in the 1950's, the stigma was in full-force. However, we see as she advances in her career, yet the illness becomes worse. She goes through bouts of substance abuse and promiscuity; even marries someone whom she divorces the next week; and she has several conflicts and tantrums with her children and elderly mother. All these problem occurred before she received adequate therapy, and medication.A recent survey released by NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) recorded that a majority of US adults fail to recognize most of the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder. It also was released that one in five respondents to the poll believed that people could CONTROL their illness without medication if they wanted to. (bp Magazine, Winter 2006) If you watch this film, you will learn the true story of a talented woman who could not \"pull herself up by her bootstraps\" and \"get well\" until she was educated about her disorder, and received proper treatment. Thank you, Ms. Duke, for being an advocate against ignorance and prejudice. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b62e752402244be9e4eb0b1e8fa4184", "input": "Review: Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c39e5739dc7d4f2c91c3618f70c695ec", "input": "Review: ** possible spoilers **I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-04c2b1fb6e7a49f985ffcd1691471029", "input": "Review: This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcbbd3255ae649a89b9fd9783787414d", "input": "Review: This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- \"Blind? Then what does he look at?\" After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the \"invisible\" neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d88b7a6ddc63449fb362f447baea192d", "input": "Review: This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d847577993473fb38e6bc8c92fae98", "input": "Review: I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b3cfcb3248244d39e4bd55d1826c19c", "input": "Review: by Dane Youssef \"Coonskin\" is film, by the one and only Ralph Bakshi, is reportedly a satirical indictment of blaxploitation films and negative black stereotypes, as well as a look at life black in modern America (modern for the day, I mean--1975). Paramount dropped it like a hot potato that just burst into flame.But this is a Bakshi film, controversial, thrilling, and a must-see almost by definition alone. Not just another random \"shock-jock\" of a movie which tries to shock for the sake of shock. It's by Ralph Bakshi. Anyone who knows the name knows that if HE made a movie, he has something big to say...Although it's roots are based in cheap blaxploitation, \"Coonskin\" isn't just another campy knock-off of mainstream white film or any kind of throwaway flick. \"Coonskin\" wants to be more. It aims it's sights higher and fries some much bigger fish.The movie doesn't just poke fun at the genre. Nor does it just indict black people, but actually seems to show love, beauty and heart in the strangest places.\"Coonskin\" tells a story out of some convicts awaiting a jail-break. The fact that it's even possible to break out of a prison in the \"Coonskin\" world alone makes it old-fashioned.One of the inmates tells a story about a trio of black brothers in Harlem named Brother Bear, Brother Rabbit, Preacher Fox who want respect and a piece of the action and are willing to get it by any means necessary. The Itallian mob is running all the real action.Big name black musicians star: Barry White and Scatman Crothers, as well as Charles Gordone, the first black playwright to take home the Pulitzer. Something big is happening here obviously.The movie plays out like a descent into this world, this side of the racial divide. From an angry, hip, deep, soulful black man with a hate in his heart and a gun in his hand.Bakshi's films never know the meaning of the word \"sublety.\" This one looks like it's never even heard of the word. But maybe a subject like this needs extremism. Real sledgehammer satire. Some subjects can't be tackled gently.Bakshi is god-dammed merciless. Here, no member or minority of the Harlem scene appears unscathed.The characters here are \"animated\" to \"real\" all depending on what the mood and situation are. The animated characters and the human ones all share the same reality and are meant to be taken just as literally.Bakshi never just shows ugly caricatures just for shock value. He always has something to say. Nor is black-face is gratuitously. Here, unlike in Spike Lee's \"Bamboozled,\" he seems to be using it to try and really say something.Like 99.9% of all of Bakshi's films, this one incorporates animation and live-action. Usually at the same time. Bakshki isn't just being gimmicky here. All of this technique is all intertwined, meshing together while saying something.Somehow, this one feels inevitably dated. Many of these types of films (Bakshi's included) are very topical, very spur of the moment. They reflect the certain trend for the day, but looking back of them years later, there's just an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia (as well as timeless truth).Even though the music, clothes, slang and the city clearly looks like photos that belong in a time capsule, the attitude, the spirit and the heart remain the same no matter what f--king ear it is. Anyone who's really seen the movies, the state of things and has been in company of the people know what I'm talking about.Even some of the of the black characters are a bunny (junglebunny), a big ol' bear and a fox. One of the most sour and unsavory racist characters is a dirty Harlem cop who's hot on the trail of these \"dirty n-----s\" after the death of a cop. But for him, it's not just business. Nor is it for the rest of the brothers who wear the shield. It's just pure sadistic racist pleasure of hurting blacks.The sequence involving the Godfather and his lady is one of the most moving pieces in the whole film, of which there are many. It plays out like an opera or a ballet.The promo line: WARNING: \"This film offends everybody!\" This is not just hype. Proceed with extreme caution.You have been warned...by Dane Youssef Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c7db38bae3e41fb939b3f0787e927ca", "input": "Review: Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.Why was this even made? 2/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-161a85476e17475da44dabfeb917ba41", "input": "Review: Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ea783c7af9f4b7e866856f74ced20f3", "input": "Review: Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d13898a430964adab691942c06d6dc9c", "input": "Review: This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask \"why\" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch \"Lord of the Weed\": it's a lot, lot more fun. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-37e2bf66d0bb4a28bfc4f549945456ee", "input": "Review: Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4dc47f3cbd24e2a81d246782662f17f", "input": "Review: Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!The real gem however is the incredible \"Smooth Criminal\" video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbe97a23925e45e091819fbe96fa134e", "input": "Review: I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf4aa56f277843fb98af5ebe1f95c0c0", "input": "Review: This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-109cc43f071344809677ea2a0062dc1b", "input": "Review: A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort \"The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)\" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's \"Lady X\" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0bc48d4199e43dd986f4ee06a6ab905", "input": "Review: The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cf085dcc370402492db64f5c7f57381", "input": "Review: This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec6bd35f68ca41a8976bde9ee1bc3eef", "input": "Review: The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a \"man vs. cruel nature\" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no \"homage\" or \"tribute\" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).That we see something from \"behind the scenes\" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-57effdc57212431dbcba1b8339356aa0", "input": "Review: Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life – a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche – I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55926af343a249939ead26ca0740af3e", "input": "Review: I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, \"What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot.\"Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes \"Pedro\" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ba53c1513f94e04ae28013d5890821e", "input": "Review: This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb73b585263645d09ba550ba980b833e", "input": "Review: There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with \"Cabin Fever\" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8954e1b039f04662b55f8b9a2903ed4b", "input": "Review: Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd8bd9002cad425d8c2f4dfe45bb9456", "input": "Review: Steve Carell comes into his own in his first starring role in the 40 Year Old Virgin, having only had supporting roles in such films as Bewitched, Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, and his work on the Daily Show, we had only gotten a small taste of the comedy that Carell truly makes his own. You can tell that Will Ferrell influenced his \"comedic air\" but Carell takes it to another level, everything he does is innocent, lovable, and hilarious. I would not hesitate to say that Steve Carell is one of the next great comedians of our time.The 40 Year Old Virgin is two hours of non-stop laughs (or 4 hours if you see it twice like I did), a perfect supporting cast and great leads charm the audience through the entire movie. The script was perfect with so many great lines that you will want to see the movie again just to try to remember them all. The music fit the tone of the movie great, and you can tell the director knew what he was doing.Filled with sex jokes, some nudity, and a lot of language, this movie isn't for everyone but if you liked the Wedding Crashers, Anchorman, or any movie along those lines, you will absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-934fe3c50e5c480aac95b27e45527c8f", "input": "Review: Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0a489e41744455d98336fb915395269", "input": "Review: I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie \"Moonraker\" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.As a cross between \"Pi\", \"Orlando\", and \"Tron\", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in \"Tron.\" Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e22ea27ffbd40dc88b296052b0508cb", "input": "Review: There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0abb9492146242efa05f7e579aad50bf", "input": "Review: This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall \"Tex\" Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-360afb929d2746f7871c96713faf0170", "input": "Review: This episode from the first season slightly edges towards controversy with the whole gender bending angle.I imagine there would have been a significant amount of editing before this was finished to appease censors.The story itself is original and well written and the directing is complemented by the fine acting.(Nicholas Lea makes his X-Files debut though not as Agent Krycek but as a victim called Michael) I especially enjoyed the built up to and the ending itself.Its different but enjoyable.Ignore any bad reviews you may hear.Watch it for yourself and make judgement then Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c12333c14a6b4c26b26ecde44fb2cfd0", "input": "Review: Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the \"Chosen One\".)NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e05f018b7abd4c848155281db692cbf0", "input": "Review: Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-beee36f46d6442a38970b16abcc2bba9", "input": "Review: I saw this gem of a film at Cannes where it was part of the directors fortnight.Welcome to Collinwood is nothing short of superb. Great fun throughout, with all members of a strong cast acting their socks off. It's a sometimes laugh out loud comedy about a petty crook (Cosimo, played by Luis Guzman) who gets caught trying to steal a car and sent to prison. While in prison he meets a `lifer' who tells him of `the ultimate bellini' – which to you and me – is a sure-fire get rich quick scheme. It turns out that there is a way through from a deserted building into the towns jewellers shop – which could net millions. Sounds simple? – well throw in all kinds of wacky characters and incidents along the way and you have got the ingredients for a one wild ride!! – word passes from one low life loser to the next and soon a team of them are assembled to try and cash in on Cosimos `bellini' lead by failed boxer Pero (Superbly played by Sam Rockwell – surely a star in the making) and reluctant crook Riley (William H. Macy) who is forced to bring his baby along with him as his wife was locked up for fraud!!.Based on the Italian film I Soliti ignoti (Big Deal on Madonna street) which also inspired a similar film to `Collinwood' – `Palookaville'. This knocks spots of the latter effort and although its written and directed by the Russo brothers it definitely has shades of the Coen Brothers about it. Produced by Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney, who has a small yet hilarious part as a crippled safe breaker. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82b0d9a3d04845a69b84665ab3f218af", "input": "Review: It is not the same as the other films about dancing. A few normal people found themselves from dancing. Unlike the dancing films in Hollywood, the characters in this film are not handsome or hot young people. They are someone that you may see everyday in your offices. They are some depressed about their lives and finally find themselves and their dreams from dancing. This touches me very deeply. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a360c91ee1940ab88a8263938a1b691", "input": "Review: This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecfec2a021a44ce1a488787c76693b24", "input": "Review: A dying Kung Fu master sends out his last student in order to track down what happened to the previous five students who were members of the banned Poison Clan.He is to see if they are acting for good and if not he his to stop them The master also wants the student to find another member of the clan who ran off with the clans money which the master wants used for good. The earlier students were all taught in a different style snake, centipede, scorpion, lizard, toad, while the last student was taught a little in each style. All of the students end up in one town looking for the old man with all of the money,and soon everyone is battling to get the money.Classic martial arts film has title that even many non-fans know. I've spoken with a couple of casual fans and this seems to be the one film that sticks in their head. Its a very good movie, though I'm not really sure why this film stays with people when for my money there are other films that are better from the Shaw studio (One armed Swordmen or the Brave Archer series for example). This isn't to sell the film short, its not, since the film is structured like a mystery, our hero has no clue who anyone is and the Venoms themselves only know at best who two of the others is. We're given the identity of four but we still have to work out who the fifth really is. The film is also odd in that for a martial arts film, other than a training sequence at the start and the killing of the old man and his family for the money, there is really no action for about 40 or 45 minutes. Its a bold move to do it but it pays off since the plot and the performances hold your attention. (The film is also odd in that its the first martial arts film I think I've ever seen where there are no women. I don't think one has a speaking role and I'm pretty sure that none appear in the background. Its indicative of nothing, its just something that struck me.) This is a good solid little film that may not live up to the reputation it has in some circles, but is still a really good film to curl up with on your couch.Around 7 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a96daca3dc45443ca45d3c650a6f5609", "input": "Review: One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.Terrific songs include \"Let Yourself Go,\" \"Let's Face the Music,\" and \"Putting All My Eggs in One Basket.\" The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings \"Let Yourself Go\" with Grable among the backup singers.Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. \"Get Thee Behind Me\" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings \"But Where Are You?\" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with \"Let Yourself Go\".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.Fun all the way, although I got tired of \"We Joined the Navy\" after the third time.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e0f6ab5c96c415d919ba04d1b02b66f", "input": "Review: An American In Paris is an integrated musical, meaning that the songs and dances blend perfectly with the story. The film was inspired by the 1928 orchestral composition by George Gershwin. The story of the film is interspersed with show-stopping dance numbers choreographed by Gene Kelly and set to popular Gershwin tunes. Songs and music include \"I Got Rhythm,\" \"'S Wonderful,\" and \"Our Love is Here to Stay\". It set a new standard for the subgenre known as the \"songbook\" musical with dozens of Gershwin tunes buried in the underscore. The climax is \"The American in Paris\" ballet, an 18 minute dance featuring Kelly and Caron set to Gershwin's An American in Paris, featuring an Impressionistic period daydream in the style of various painters, is one of the longest uninterrupted dance sequences of any Hollywood film. The ballet alone cost more than half a million dollars, a staggering sum at the time.It's funny to think of such a work of art being born over a pool game between film producer Arthur Freed (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, WIZARD OF OZ, ON THE TOWN, MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and THE BAND WAGON) and Ira Gershwin. It was Freed's idea to buy the title so he could use if in a film about Paris and Gershwin's idea that it would only use Gershwin music.Original cast was to have Cyd Charisse but she discovered she was pregnant before shooting began. A major reason Gene Kelly suggested Leslie Caron as the female lead was because he felt this movie needed a \"real\" French girl playing Lise, not just an American actress playing one. Gene Kelly discovered Leslie Caron while vacationing in Paris where he saw her perform in a ballet. When she got the call to audition, she said, \"Who's Gene Kelly?\" According to Leslie Caron, her introductory dance sequence, which included a seductive dance with a chair, was considered too suggestive by some censors. Gene Kelly directed the brief fantasy dance sequences shown as Lise is introduced.Vincente Minnelli first wanted Maurice Chevalier in the Georges Guétary part, and 'Celeste Holm' in the 'Nina Foch' part.Minnelli was a groundbreaking director of musicals with Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon (1953). He used color and songs in ways they hadn't been used before. He used space and time imaginatively. Best of all, though, he allowed himself to cut loose for the long ballet sequences that end all his movies. The ballet in An American in Paris may be his best work.Even though Vincente Minnelli is credited as the sole director, he was sometimes tied up with his divorce from Judy Garland and other directing projects, leaving Gene Kelly to take over the directing duties.Other highlights include Guetary's rendition of \"Stairway to Paradise\"; Oscar Levant's fantasy of conducting and performing Gershwin's \"Concerto in F\" (see why it was Oscar Levant's favorite.)The ballet sequence, now that we know it was successful everybody now wants to take credit for it, Freed, Minnelli, Kelly… but before the film was completed the New York office of MGM said no to spending a half million dollars on a ballet. So Freed went to studio head Louis B. Mayer himself and got him to agree, New York said no. Finally Gene Kelly showed the New York office how a British film, THE RED SHOES used a long ballet sequence and that film became a world wide hit – and is still considered today the premium example of a successful art film. Well the financial guys finally gave in and signed the checks.There was a break in production after 1 November 1950, at which point Gene Kelly began rehearsing the ballet choreography. By the time production for that final sequence resumed on 6 December, Vincente Minnelli had finished directing another film - Father's Little Dividend (1951).Irene Sharaff designed a style for each of the ballet sequence sets, reflecting various French impressionist painters: 'Raoul Dufy' (the Place de la Concorde), Edouard Manet (the flower market), Maurice Utrillo (a Paris street), Henri Rousseau (the fair), 'Vincent Van Gogh' (the Place de l'Opera), and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (the Moulin Rouge). The backgrounds took six weeks to build, with 30 painters working nonstop.Roger Ebert said after viewing the recent restoration, \"An American in Paris has many qualities, not least its famous ballet production number, with Kelly and Leslie Caron symbolizing the entire story of their courtship in dance.\" An American In Paris is often compared to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN as to which it the greatest musical ever made, and one critic put it best when he said, \"SINGIN' IN THE RAIN makes me happy and An American In Paris makes me feel good.\" The ballet represents Kelly's fantasies as depicted by the great French artists (Renoir, Rousseau, Lautrec, Dufy) he admires. Arranging a screening for the then ailing Raoul Dufy, the actor and producer ducked out until the end credits. There, relieved, they found the artist, moved to tears, requesting a second helping of the sumptuous finale.The film was also the first to win a Golden Globe award for Best Motion Picture (comedy or musical.)Gene Kelly received an honorary Academy Award that year for \"his versatility as an actor, singer, director and dancer, and specifically for his brilliant achievements in the art of choreography on film.\" It was his only Oscar. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc2298c3f6a24b6cb3eab050f3ca1874", "input": "Review: -A very pretty red headed woman waiting for her plane meets a charming young man that she connects with. As the two get on their flight and sit next to each other the young man Jack becomes deadly as he threatens Lisa to either change the room that a politician and his wife will be staying in, or else have her father die. See now that's what you happens when you fly coach, stuff like that never happens in first class.-Other than having a conflict that takes place on a flight, the other thing that this movie shares with \"Flightplan\" is the sheer unbelievability *if that's a word* of the story. The point of the whole is to get the main character to change a politician's room so he can be assassinated which is a pretty plausible plan, but won't it have being easier for Jack to just find someone that was computer savvy and have them hack into the hotel's system? Teenagers today can damn near do anything with computers, so I'm pretty sure it would have been easier for him to simply get someone to change it using a computer instead of going through the trouble of spying on Lisa and getting her into the predicament that she lands on in the movie.-Plus one thing that struck me as odd was how no one on the plan heard a single thing they were talking about. This is a very small plane were talking about here and since their voices were raised occasionally it seems to me like the other passengers should have heard something. But I'm 100% sure that I'm reading way too much into it. The movie is meant to be as realistic as an episode of \"24\" so one can't be perplexed by such complexities. For all my complaints though, this is still a very fun movie that gets the job done. It's not exactly the type that requires to shut of your brain, but at the same time it doesn't require great intelligence to fully enjoy.-I'd love to sit here in my comfy chair and rave about the brilliant acting in the movie but really I can't. I love Rachel McAdams, I love Cillian Murphy, and I like Brian Cox, but they don't really stretch their acting muscles here. It's not really much of a problem since this isn't the movie that studios hope to win multiple awards and the acting isn't the least bit horrible, just not great. Wes Craven isn't exactly the first that comes to mind when you think of a movie like this, but he does a very nice job considering the time they had to film the movie and the lack of depth to the script. It was definitely a huge improvement over the disappointing \"Cursed\" and as much as I liked him doing something different with this movie, I still would love for him to go back to doing what he did in the past which is great horror movies that is talked about decades after it's release.-One nice thing about the movie which I really appreciated was just how short the movie was. It is great to sit and watch a nice three hour or so movie once in a while, but nowadays it's like every movie that comes out feels too long, where as this movie just felt like the right length. Not too long, and too short. They don't waste time by trying to develop the characters too much because they know this isn't the movie for that and by doing so they made a very nice short movie. Being a huge film music geek, I have to say that the best part of the movie is the ultra cool score by Marco Beltrami. It's really nice to see Beltrami go from writing the predictable stuff to the great music he's doing now. I really the cool techno/orchestral stuff he does for the main titles. Too bad that I can't find the soundtrack anywhere, would have really loved to listen to the titles anytime I wanted instead of having to pop in the DVD when I want to hear it.-Overall It's nice for what it is and whiles it's far from great cinema, should still provide for some small entertaining hour and a half Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f284140055554d458c65adf17bc6571d", "input": "Review: I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says \"Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-486cf76b7910431498683cffb0d5e2fc", "input": "Review: When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found 'The Mind's Eye' again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc95376274144e02a0bee01b01792fa8", "input": "Review: Cute film about three lively sisters from Switzerland (often seen running about in matching outfits) who want to get their parents back together (seems mom is still carrying the torch for dad) - so they sail off to New York to stop the dad from marrying a blonde gold-digger he calls \"Precious\". Dad hasn't seen his daughters in ten years, they (oddly enough) don't seem to mind and think he's wonderful, and meanwhile Precious seems to lead a life mainly run by her overbearing mother (Alice Brady), a woman who just wants to see to it her daughter marries a rich man. The sisters get the idea of pushing Precious into the path of a drunken Hungarian count, tricking the two gold-digging women into thinking he is one of the richest men in Europe. But a case of mistaken identity makes the girls think the count is good-looking Ray Milland, who goes along with the scheme 'cause he has a crush on sister Kay.This film is enjoyable, light fare. Barbara Read as Kay comes across as sweet and pretty, Ray Milland looks oh so young and handsome here (though, unfortunately, is given little to do), Alice Brady is quite good as the scheming mother - but it is Deanna Durbin, a real charmer and cute as a button playing youngest sister Penny, who pretty much steals the show. With absolutely beautiful vocals, she sings several songs throughout the film, though I actually would have liked to have seen them feature her even more in this. The plot in this film is a bit silly, but nevertheless, I found the film to be entertaining and fun. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c549094716134e12b32c7a1b63d146fc", "input": "Review: It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de7a42fea2274c39a1cbe6fec7413849", "input": "Review: Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c29f844094f492ca640d2236a2c1298", "input": "Review: There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd74e73d731e429b9a97a6be367ba7a9", "input": "Review: This movie is not for everyone. You're either bright enough to get \"it\" or you're not. Fans of sci-fi films who don't take themselves too seriously definitely will enjoy this movie. I recommend this movie for those who can appreciate spoofs and parodies. Everyone I've recommended this film to has enjoyed it. If you enjoy Monty Python or Mel Brooks films, you'll probably enjoy this one. The voice characterizations are done in a tongue-in-cheek manner and the one-liners fly fast and furious. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8ab8d3bbc3e49b2a84514b97cc07932", "input": "Review: Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aab2ea8b39a547b79a9317171ead36ae", "input": "Review: I loved Dedee Pfeiffer (is that spelled right?) in Cybil. Haven't seen her for awhile and forgot how much I missed her. I thought she did a great job in this. The supporting cast was pretty good too. In some angles, the daughter even looked like a young Nicole Kidman. The abductor was pretty creepy and the story generally had some good twists. The young boyfriend was a hottie. I thought the husband definitely had something to do with it for sure.Just got the Lifetime Movie Network for Christmas and am loving these movies. Kept my interest and I'll watch it again when they rerun it. Can anyone else recommend any similar movies to this? You can post on the board or send me a private email if you want. Thanks in advance. Aboutagirly. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48962b53f7ac4ad1b6d686ec3fb3cdf8", "input": "Review: Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2604419b220e402685a6e477b5efe64f", "input": "Review: This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed \"dish\" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-021b561510714efd8d96168fa88d5e02", "input": "Review: This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.Rating: 8 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc79d1bdf7c14153972f1ba75a01ee67", "input": "Review: I thought Hugh O'Conor was astounding as the young Christy Brown, and really deserved greater recognition for his role. I couldn't believe how well he played the part. Of course, Daniel Day-Lewis was brilliant too. My favourite scene is where the boys are playing football and Christy uses his head to stop the goals and then kicks the penalty! Amazing performances by the two Christys (and other also). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-779b1a4f65714553bab26b68d0ebb411", "input": "Review: The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34032bba645440efa061206319e54317", "input": "Review: This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a \"Midnight Cowboy\" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24e6cda864a34c04b50c63ab84de54dd", "input": "Review: This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-257c9e50f6484e77aa023afbb7d955de", "input": "Review: I think that this film adds to diversity and is very accurate in terms of historic reconstruction. The way it shows the various communities leaving together in Thailand is very interesting...The Portuguese, the Japanese, and the various communities being managed by the king. The plots around the court are as usual a struggle for power with a lot of treason. The wardrobe is fine. The film is also done locally in Thailand in a reasonable production. The scene with the elefant as executors is very interesting. It is fun and I think that is also usable in schools for its historic accuracy because it shows that the European in Asia were subjects of the local kings in way very different from the traditional Hollywood perspective. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a52d331949d24ccaa7e549a6c2d723cc", "input": "Review: The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f169802050c6429cb2604a665fbe6c2c", "input": "Review: Funny. Sad. Charming. These are all words that floated through my head while I was watching this beautiful, simple film.It is rare that a movie truly moves me, but \"Shall We Dance?\" accomplished that with grace to spare. Gentle humor mixed in with occasional subtle agony made this easily one of the best experiences of my movie-viewing history. It left me with a quiet sense of exultation, but with a small touch of sadness mixed in.And the dancing, oh yes, the dancing. Even if you are not a lover of the art, or can't put one foot in front of another, the steps displayed here will take your breath away, and make you want to sign up for classes as fast as you can. It was absolutely enchanting, even the parts that show Sugiyama's (touchingly portrayed by Koji Yakusho) stilted steps when he was first learning to dance were lovely in a humorous, child-like way. And yet, this film was not entirely about dancing, but more about the subtleties of human behavior and feelings. We witness a shy man learning to express his repressed feelings through dance, a beautiful dance instructor rediscovering her love for the art, and the personal growth of every member of the wonderful supporting cast.Beauty. Pain. Emotion. All the love and little agonies of life are here, expressed with the delicate feeling of a fine Japanese watercolor painting combined with the emotional strength and grace of the culture. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d820749db010415bbedf8c0b258b9e25", "input": "Review: I went into Deathtrap expecting a well orchestrated and intriguing thriller; and while that's something like what this film is; I also can't help but think that it's just a poor man's Sleuth. The classic 1972 film is obviously an inspiration for this film; not particularly in terms of the plot, but certainly it's the case with the execution. The casting of Michael Caine in the central role just confirms it. The film is based on a play by Ira Levin (who previously wrote Rosemary's Baby and The Stepford Wives) and focuses on Sidney Bruhl; a playwright whose best days are behind him. After his latest play bombs, Sidney finds himself at a low; and this is not helped when a play named Deathtrap; written by an amateur he taught, arrives on his doorstep. Deathtrap is a guaranteed commercial success, and Sidney soon begins hatching a plot of his own; which involves inviting round the amateur scribe, killing him, and then passing Deathtrap off as his own work.Despite all of its clever twists and turns; Deathtrap falls down on one primary element, and that's the characters. The film fails to provide a single likable character, and it's very hard to care about the story when you're not rooting for any of the players. This is not helped by the acting. Michael Caine puts in a good and entertaining performance as you would expect, but nobody else does themselves proud. Christopher Reeve is awkward in his role, while Dyan Cannon somehow manages to make the only possibly likable character detestable with a frankly irritating performance. It's lucky then that the story is good; and it is just about good enough to save the film. The plot features plenty of twists and turns; some work better than others, but there's always enough going on to ensure that the film stays interesting. Director Sidney Lumet deserves some credit too as the style of the film is another huge plus. The central location is interesting in its own right, and the cinematography fits the film well. Overall, I have to admit that I did enjoy this film; but it could have been much, much better. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c43720f502764f2da9d05811d51c47a4", "input": "Review: The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-283e14bf8da945cfb5e70411e5868d37", "input": "Review: I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-710471b22a264941aec9fb96b86f7c14", "input": "Review: I disagree with previous comment about this movie. I think it was cute and fun and it carried a good message for young girls like my daughter. You don't have to dress like a cheap hooker to be cool. You can be smart and pretty and classy all at once.I think the cast was good and the story was fine for the target audience. All-in-all my wife, daughter (10) and I each thought it was a good movie. I certainly recommend it. It also has encouraged my daughter to start reading the original Nancy Drew mysteries which I am sure she will love much as I loved the Hardy Boys. It was a struggle to get her to sleep tonight because she wanted to start reading right away. I can't think of a better outcome for that movie than rekindling interest in that classic series. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e03b3b4095af4164bbb805bf6b33a985", "input": "Review: A beautiful new print of \"Zabriskie Point\" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful \"extras\" will be out in the near future.I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a \"near-miss\" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2cf6dfafb30d4ba5944954e7fbd578cc", "input": "Review: \"Three Daring Daughters\" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the \"its just a movie\" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa78b37357c04816aa95e5914ede0c71", "input": "Review: Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-877fbe64ff5c4cedb56490f2e10c415d", "input": "Review: No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82f1e1f7e63a4bd889efb8e7640ef1a8", "input": "Review: As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his \"slut\" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. \"The Dentist\" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30c73fd785fe4008a9b89ef20b2b4d4d", "input": "Review: A true anomaly in the French cinema ,this despairing work has no equivalent in the contemporary production.One would rather have to look on the side of Louis Malle's \"le feu follet\" (1963)(the fire within) to find something not completely unlike Harel's effort.Wry and cynical,having lost all his illusions,the hero ,a computer scientist,has got no more reason to live.Absolutely none.Estranged from the human race,he seems to live his life as some kind of entomologist,studying his colleagues.One of them catches his attention:Tisserand-José Garcia plays the most demeaning part of the decade-.Then Tisserand will become some kind of prey:all his pessimism will rub off on this poor man.The scene is the night-club climaxes the strange relationship:the hero tells his victim that his life will always be unfulfilled unless he.... Well now the movie takes a more conventional turn so to speak (Clouzot's misanthropy maybe)but just for a while.The form is weird beyond comment There are two voices-over,one for the narrator who always refers to the main character as \"our hero\",one for the aforementioned hero.The story takes place,now in Paris,now in Rouen ,Guy de Maupassant's town.In a scene with his shrink ,the hero says the writer's madness was only the expression of his disgust for Man and he draws a parallel between his despair and Maupassant's one.This depressing movie is only suitable for an informed audience.Not for the very short excerpts of X-rated movies,but because after watching it,you may be feeling down in the dumps. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e98d0aa0071e4072aaa864dc4a693d52", "input": "Review: An OUR GANG Comedy Short.The Gang coerces Spanky into watching their younger siblings. Caring for these FORGOTTEN BABIES turns out to be quite a chore, leaving the little nipper with no choice but to come up with some ingenious solutions to the baby-sitting problem...Spanky is in his glory in this hilarious little film, arguably his best. Highlight: Spanky's retelling the plot of the TARZAN movie he's recently seen to the audience of infants. Movie mavens will recognize Billy Gilbert's voice in the radio drama. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7847dead82294e39bed4871650bb3378", "input": "Review: Contrary to popular belief, this title , to me at least, is not so very bad. In fact. I regard it as a favoured film of all time. The welding of stories wasn't structured too well when you consider the differences between the series, however despite all this, you can watch it quite happily. For a feature film of its day, the scenes are well proportioned and the characters remain consistently believable.The sound/audio track is a personal favourite of mine. Nearly everything has a correct sound effect and many of the voices suit the characters much better than their, now badly cast US dub, counterparts. The sync is perfect in every shot. I had a few issues with the casting for the 'alien' voices (please forgive the crude naming, it has been a while since i've seen it). Otherwise however, the cast seemed perfectly balanced. I feel and believe in the characters of this movie. Dubs are often a subject i rarely agree with from so long ago. I loved the OSD's from back then but the castings often let series down.At this point i would like to add that this was one of the first anime i saw in my life. It has historical value to me, but even after seeing the original Megazone 23 it remained stronger and more watched in my collection.To my knowledge the title only ever made it to the US in Texas. Personally i think its a big shame. Had the correct audience been subject to it, i think Robotech the Movie would have been accepted and not tarnished over the years. I am involved with anime each day of my life and everyone i have shown this movie thought it was a nicely put together title.Watching the film after its separate components will allow the viewer to notice the evident plot holes between shows. However, without seeing the originals, a viewer wouldn't really notice. Since the animation is identical in style, there was no reason to question it back in its day. The UK had very limited access to anime. Laser discs were the most productive media. Personally i like the way Carl had the balls to at least push the genre. I mean Harmony wasn't going to put up the cash for the series to get publicised.Despite the few picky faults people have had with this film, The eighties feel of it keeps me in love. If you watch Megazone 23 now, to its original Japanese audio, or the new dub, i believe you will be greatly disappointed with the OSD. Cast your minds back to the original Bubblegum Crisis Dub soundtrack and imagine new eighties audio to E.V.E.Saying all this. This film's popularity nowadays is most likely down to its rarity on the open market. Personally, it spawned a collection for me. I'm now scouring the world for merchandise from the three components that made it up and if i ever get to meet Carl Macek, ill shake his hand for the effort, and buy him a pint or a crate for getting me into anime. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-519b395e59f7495ca13a1b908a6d37a3", "input": "Review: R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other… Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35…. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin… Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The \"Satyagrah\" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0310c3887f846c0b2aefbcee0f82886", "input": "Review: This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-877f27742e3040b1a2098ee7f4ec7afb", "input": "Review: **Possible Spoilers Ahead**\tJason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on \"lab equipment\" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library music–the movie's high point–later turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a78b0b72e7654d0b8f4e4c4c3399e428", "input": "Review: When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch \"Haunted Boat\" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.Title (Brazil): \"Viagem Para a Morte\" (\"Trip to the Death\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6273a32a41e04b60a411ab2583d716fa", "input": "Review: I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a \"thumbs in the middle\" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see \"no character development\", above).And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.1) Joker gasses people.2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.3) Batman saves the day.Pfeh.There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the \"Think Thank Thunk\" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than \"I've Got Batman in My Basement.\" I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with \"B\" and rhymes with \"fastardization\". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e292df645e114a4090d19534aa234b39", "input": "Review: I didn't even want to watch this movie after reading Maltin's review and 1 1/2 star rating. I watched it anyway on the advice of my son and found it much better than I expected. I would give it 2 1/2 stars out of a 4 star system. You have to watch the movie more than once to understand it all. If you don't know much about religion, you will miss a lot. I graduated from high school the year the movie was made, so maybe I can relate to it better. Yes, there is some pretension in the movie and it's weird to some extent, but that was the 70s so what do you expect. I can see why people might not like the movie; however, I cannot understand people saying it is boring. The movie is anything but boring. You will either hate it or love it. If you find it boring, you are probably brain dead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea25dc87b9f74368b1790c870da790c4", "input": "Review: hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d0a4a18b4ec4cf6ac3b3843673c780b", "input": "Review: I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7eb5d21ec2424bcf991a0b88e32f9b4f", "input": "Review: I remember watching this movie with my friends when we were 4 years old, but the weird thing is that I never watched it after that. The other day I was babysitting and my cousin never saw All Dogs Go To Heaven so we rented both movies and watched them together today and he really loved these movies. So many memories came back watching this movie once again and I have to admit I even cried a little. I'm 22 years old and the ending still gets to me. All Dogs Go To Heaven is one of the most touching animated films and I'm shocked honestly by this rating of 5.8, I thought this movie would bring back good memories for others as well. I admit the animation was a bit typical but the story is just so charming and fun.Charlie is a gambling dog who gets killed by another gambling dog, Carface. But when Charlie wants revenge he comes back to Earth with a watch that can't stop ticking or that's the end of his life again. When he and his best friend, Itchy, look for Carface and spy on him they find out how Carface gets all his money, he has a little orphan girl who talks to animals and finds out who is going to win the races. Charlie takes the girl, Ann-Marie, and makes fake promises in order to get the money. But he ends up learning that maybe he should put Ann-Marie first before himself when Carface goes back to him with a vengeance.All Dogs Go To Heaven is the perfect family film, it's not Disney, but this is an excellent family film to watch. Not to mention that it's just so cute and touching. I know it's ridicules and some people call me crazy, but this movie for me when I was a kid made me believe that dogs have souls. How could they not? They're just so loving, and I think I'm going to cry again. But anyways, I would just recommend this movie for anyone, it's a fun movie to watch.7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-453a9bcb93dc4bdb8bea09df12d93730", "input": "Review: The third Fred MacMurray/Carole Lombard film is a bit more serious than Hands Across the Table and The Princess Comes Across. It's yet another adaption of the play Burlesque which apparently was popular back in the day.The original play Burlesque ran on Broadway in the 1927-1928 season for 372 performances and it's the role that Carole Lombard plays that Barbara Stanwyck originated on Broadway that brought her to Hollywood. A version starred Nancy Carroll in the early days of talkies and later on Betty Grable and Dan Dailey did still another version of it in When My Baby Smiles At Me.In fact I have a vinyl album of a radio version that Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler did for the Lux Radio Theater. That's an interesting work, believe me.Anyway MacMurray and Lombard do fine by the old chestnut, the story is now set in a nightclub where Lombard is a singer and MacMurray is a jazz trumpeter. Note a nice performance by Dorothy Lamour as the Latin vixen who gets between Fred and Carole. Also Anthony Quinn is in one of his earliest films as a wolf on the make for Lombard.Swing High, Swing Low holds up real nice today and I wouldn't be surprised if we see yet another version of Burlesque for the Twenty First Century. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d074d0cd9fb54cde96f90be10ea4b53b", "input": "Review: To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see \"Troy\" If you liked epics in the \"Jupiter's Darling\" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d023a655688147ce83a52513fcbfaf02", "input": "Review: My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6af3ae19fedd44aaa2268c8659da75d4", "input": "Review: Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2aac23220dd405cb8d9714a4e2b4e7f", "input": "Review: Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is mostfamous for \"Zombie,\" and the absolutely unwatchable \"ThePsychic\" and \"Manhattan Baby.\" Well, add this to the unwatchablelist.The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a goldmask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbedstud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magicbecause they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flataction sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but notbefore taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up withmy high school girlfriend.Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen withsmoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make youcrave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects arelaughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo areattacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches onthe film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have beenspent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurtingwounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in awhile, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anywayjust to see what the heck was happening.There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let medo a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does notappear in the film in any context whatsoever. \"Conquest\" is a conjob. What MST3K could have done with this!This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, femalenudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1539dc3419f41129177b027cf8905f4", "input": "Review: MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½* Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence) By Blake French: \tBelieve it or not, in the new John Warren comedy \"MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS\" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said. This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny. How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in \"Air Bud: Golden Receiver,\" and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least \"Air Bud\" was family oriented. \"Major League Back to the Minors\" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?\tThe film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own \"buddy comedy routine\" muttering one liners to themselves like \"They suck,\" \"This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass,\" \"This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind,\" \"Somebody needs a nap,\" and \"ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play.\" Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.\t\"Major League Back to the minors\" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: \"You're too old, too slow, and too fat.\" The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money. So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8130ceaa6cad4d23a235936196505b47", "input": "Review: just saw this exquisite 1982 movie Return of the Soldier, based on Rebecca West's novel. Its about a shell-shocked fortyish Captain who doesn't even tell his wife he has returned to British soil, but remains in a hospital in London. He's lost his memory and is a boy again, with a lingering yen for the lower class sweetheart he pursued 25 years earlier. Its a delicate story. He is lingering in his boyhood, while the reader discovers his wife is an unbearable, aspiring socialite who wants him to resume his place in society. Living with them is his cousin Jenny, who loved Chris Baldry the soldier, when they were growing up as playmates, but has settled into spinsterhood. The lower class woman, played by Glenda Jackson, is Margaret Gray. It is SHE who is notified that Chris is back in England. Chris' wife Kitty is shocked when Mrs. Gray comes to tell her that Chris is in a hospital in London. Kitty (Julie Christie) is vacuous and snobbish. Why, she asks herself, was this other woman sent a telegraph about Chris rather than her? Chris has forgotten totally about Kitty. He wants to renew his relationship with Margaret. The now married Margaret is reluctant to meet him, but then does and continues to meet with him. There is a psychiatrist (Ian Holm) who warns Kitty and Jenny that Chris' temporary happiness with Margaret will disappear if he 'cures' him. Jenny realizes how empty Kitty is for Chris and forms a secret loving alliance through Margaret. They both are in love with him. Jenny wants to help. Late in the film Kitty reveals that Chris and she had a boy who died five years ago. Telling Chris this, weighs the Shrink, will certainly restore him to 'normal.' But is this a good idea? Chris, barely aware that he and Kitty were ever married, is unaware of his child and the child's death. The psychiatrist, just learning of the child, believes such knowledge will restore Chris. Jenny and Margaret have Chris all to themselves because Kitty believes he is faking and refuses to accept Chris's illness in reverting to his youth in his forties. The film leaves her mostly out of consideration concerning whats to be done with Chris.But Jenny and Margaret, in the child's perfectly maintained bedroom- with Kitty too in the novel, but not in the screenplay- discuss what they believe should be done about Chris from their separate perspectives. Margaret is the critical one here, because, though married, she has half fallen in love with Chris again. Jenny's social stature, Jenny believes, will be threatened if Chris does not right himself. She does not reveal this to Margaret, however. Margaret decides, looking ahead, that Chris cannot maintain his fantasy over time, but must return to something like a real life. While Kitty and Jenny look on from the window of the house, Margaret approaches Chris outside and tells him of his lost son. The buoyant war victim's head sinks, his shoulders slump, he looks away. He walks dejectedly toward the house. FinI read some criticism of this first novel of Rebecca West. The novel was written something after the first war. The movie is never quite clear who Jenny is, his cousin or his sister. It would be more rousing if she were his sister, of course. The criticism doesn't make it clear either. I'm sure West in her novel, makes sure Jenny is her cousin, not her sister. West is no Henry Miller nor an Anais Nin, whose book Incest (about her relationship with her father as an adult to get even with him for molesting her as a child) I considered reading, but then decided against. Rebecca the author has a need to restore Chris too. She too has outposts in her head for the Society her novel excoriates first but finally embraces once more. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-312af4a057514a589d04d970c85a8f40", "input": "Review: If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our \"hero\") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around… After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b1854830d8240b2a2fce91b60623899", "input": "Review: One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. \"12 Monkeys\" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. \"12 Monkeys\" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b25fd60d2564a3b8db9e86ea8395cb0", "input": "Review: Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1833e87a93b64effa315ded18df77d06", "input": "Review: Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance byTom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his \"look\" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. It rates a 3.2/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4828a4b6029473ab77ae5d88dc0563c", "input": "Review: Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.I can see some people saying: \"Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man.\" Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.0/5 stars Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e572d9e78ed44bca8fff855e5c5b1cc", "input": "Review: This film is great. As often heard, it is indeed very realistic and sometimes brutal, but unlike some other people I am clearly not of the opinion that it is depressing, negativistic or dismantling Austria as a proto-fascist society. Quite the contrary: While there are indeed some very heavy scenes in HUNDSTAGE and some characters are to be called very bad persons, at the same time you watch love, beauty and humor in Ulrich Seidls film. And that's exactly what distinguishes HUNDSTAGE for me from other films that try to show the lives of the 'ordinary people' in an intense, realistic way; their hustle, their wishes, their dark sides: Seidl clearly never tries to prove, that the lives of the working-class people are trash! In my opinion, viewers who come to this conclusion seem to be very afraid of admitting, that nearly nobody's live is as 'clean' and 'normal' as we would like other people to believe. And that every live has its dark and often depressing sides. The most beautiful scene: The old Viennese man, watching his old girl dancing 'the oriental way', as he is calling it. I think everybody who finds this scene ugly lacks a sense of beauty and should ask themselves what it is, that's proto-fascist: The characters in HUNDSTAGE or viewers, who are turned off by the body of a 70+ year old woman, dancing with all her charms for her lover. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fe0bcc9e1c7461cbbc0cedb179a7071", "input": "Review: A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1b70abfb44e4880bf07c13868f3648c", "input": "Review: Alan Alda plays real-life \"Sports Illustrated\" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3704de5088264470a451391a25092747", "input": "Review: I might not be a huge admirer of the original \"Creepshow\", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. # The first story \"Old Chief Woodenhead\" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. -Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! # Second story \"The Raft\" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. -Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. # Finally number three concludes with \"The Hitchhiker\". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat… and repeat the line, \"Thanks for the ride lady!\" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. In all, the second short story \"The Raft\" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9dd42dcd72f044e6b27349b4d533a04a", "input": "Review: speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his \"friends\" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a \"ok i'm outta here!\" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.Coherence.thanks for reading ;) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-14041a9d355d41089f439ef758b9b5d5", "input": "Review: This movie is not for everyone. You're either bright enough to get \"it\" or you're not. Fans of sci-fi films who don't take themselves too seriously definitely will enjoy this movie. I recommend this movie for those who can appreciate spoofs and parodies. Everyone I've recommended this film to has enjoyed it. If you enjoy Monty Python or Mel Brooks films, you'll probably enjoy this one. The voice characterizations are done in a tongue-in-cheek manner and the one-liners fly fast and furious. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-496b8c22e7b6419bb2213da3c80172c2", "input": "Review: The movie starts out fine. Widower out with new girlfriend and the children.The movie is filled with stupid director's choices. Like \"lets separate.\" \"I am coming down to....\" do what? Stupid Stupid Stupid.Please do not waste your time hoping that it will get better.............. Not hardly. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f37868bc8802423381df22f51cf48056", "input": "Review: The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9014205337824caea5cd5a597b8be692", "input": "Review: Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-277e1127f052471b8970014d0b8a70b1", "input": "Review: Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe7ee5ee80d64de8bf82f301afc8ddf4", "input": "Review: An excellent film with great performances from Zack & Lochley. Much to their displeasure (& mine) Garibaldi arrived on station. (All due respect to Jerry Doyle but in Seasons 4 & 5 I lost sympathy for the character.) It doesn't take him long to start criticizing Zack (who I love best of all on the show)and taking charge. I'm sure Zack could have coped. The Soulhunter plot is fascinating, especially if you believe in heaven as Zack does. The humour supplements it nicely. 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dea3810a4607431c85e8834e0daed8ed", "input": "Review: This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. \"Spirit\" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so. \"Spirit\" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41ec3a70b4294cfbb339d372a2f1072a", "input": "Review: One of those classics, held up next to \"Deep Throat\" and \"Behind the Green Door.\"Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5d7402345b9434d8f72071ea11934ea", "input": "Review: I was adopted at birth and certainly did NOT have the problems Antwone fisher had in the movie, but I still share some of the emotions and this movie really helped to bring them out and force me to deal with them. It even caused me to realize that I do have a \"missing piece\" and I am going to seek out my birthparents now.I cried for almost a day after I saw this the first time. Antwone's confrontation with his birthmother juxtaposed with his father's family's reaction to his sudden appearance are powerful for those of us who don't know what will happen if we find our birth parents. And his self-confidence and self affirmations to his mother and against the abusers of his past were so powerful. I could really identify with this and my need to tell people \"yeah, I was put aside by my parents when I was born. BUT another set of parents picked me up and loved me. And now I am a success!\"It also helped my wife understand me and our adopted children, who did go through tragic experiences before they came to our home. And it helped me to realize just how messed up our social system is. If you remember reading the story last year about the foster kid in Florida who was \"lost\" AND then the \"Miranda & Ashley\" story in Oregon City where SCF ignored multiple sexual abuse complaints about the man who ultimately killed them AND the week this movie was released, yet another story in New Jersey of three kids who were ignored by the system. One died. The state apparently thought the home they were in was ok because the guardian was employed (as a stripper) and \"only occasionally\" used heroin!There are just so many issues that are brought out in this movie - and they are dealt with so well by the script and by the acting that Antwone Fisher should be a \"Best Picture\" nominee for sure. No matter if you are adopted or not, it is a heart-tugger that can't be ignored by anyone concerned about children in our society. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fce217498b384b5497309837755f543f", "input": "Review: Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between \"Days of Thunder\" and \"Apollo 13.\" And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of \"Thunderbird 6\" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd2b485d95c648f6b06f907e6205577c", "input": "Review: Yes, this production is long (good news for Bronte fans!) and it has a somewhat dated feel, but both the casting and acting are so brilliant that you won't want to watch any other versions!Timothy Dalton IS Edward Rochester... it's that simple. I don't care that other reviewers claim he's too handsome. Dalton is attractive, certainly, but no pretty-boy. In fact he possesses a craggy, angular dark charm that, in my mind, is quite in keeping with the mysterious, very masculine Mr R. And he takes on Rochester's sad, tortured persona so poignantly. He portrays ferocity when the scene calls for it, but also displays Rochester's tender, passionate, emotional side as well. (IMO the newer A&E production suffers in that Ciaran Hinds - whom I normally adore - seems to bluster and bully his way throughout. I've read the book many times and I never felt that Rochester was meant to be perceived as a nonstop snarling beast.)When I reread the novel, I always see Zelah Clarke as Jane. Ms. Clarke, to me, resembles Jane as she describes herself (and is described by others). Small, childlike, fairy... though it's true the actress doesn't look 18, she portrays Jane's attributes so well. While other reviews have claimed that her acting is wooden or unemotional, one must remember that the character spent 8 years at Lowood being trained to hold her emotions and \"passionate nature\" in check. Her main inspiration was her childhood friend Helen, who was the picture of demure submission. Although her true nature was dissimilar, Jane learned to master her temper and appear docile, in keeping with the school's aims for its charity students who would go into 'service'. Jane becomes a governess in the household of the rich Mr. Rochester. She would certainly *not* speak to him as an equal. Even later on when she gave as well as she got, she would always be sure to remember that her station was well below that of her employer. Nevertheless, if you read the book - to which this production stays amazingly close - you can clearly see the small struggles Zelah-as-Jane endures as she subdues her emotions in order to remain mild and even-tempered.The chemistry between Dalton and Clarke is just right, I think. No, it does not in the least resemble Hollywood (thank God! It's not a Hollywood sort of book) but theirs is a romance which is true, devoted and loyal. And for a woman like Jane, who never presumed to have *any* love come her way, it is a minor miracle.The rest of the casting is terrific, and I love the fact that nearly every character from the book is present here. So, too, is much of the rich, poetic original dialogue. This version is the only one that I know of to include the lovely, infamous 'gypsy scene' and in general, features more humor than other versions I've seen. In particular, the mutual teasing between the lead characters comes straight from the book and is so delightful!Jane Eyre was, in many ways, one of the first novelized feminists. She finally accepted love on her own terms and independently, and, at last, as Rochester's true equal. Just beautiful! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18a58543e08a48b896839d46de450aea", "input": "Review: Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-99c7b3d5ab794fd1804cc71fef6a19f7", "input": "Review: Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is \"Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers\" (I will always remember that sweet song forever). I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1a5daed84104a5b9cf8bd18f9187ae0", "input": "Review: A real classic. A shipload of sailors trying to get to the towns daughters while their fathers go to extremes to deter the sailors attempts. A maidens cry for aid results in the dispatch of the \"Rape Squad\". A cult film waiting to happen! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c52a8b4217304d9dab450e85bdbbb9b2", "input": "Review: Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6cdedc50f1341dcacdac72012fdde1e", "input": "Review: If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7d14f51ac5f44e9b164ef3a4782ec02", "input": "Review: I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies last night and was blown away by Victor McLaglen's performance:In every sense of the word a \"tour de force\". The atmosphere of 1922 Dublin evoked through the cinematography and production design really foreshadowed techniques used in the best film noirs of the 40's and early 50's.Very nice attention to detail also;during Frankie McPhillip's (Wallace Ford's) wake, the mourners are all praying in Gaelic. Max Steiner's score is unforgettable. As in later films such as 1939's GWTW, he appropriated folk ballads to lend local color and a sense of place and time. John Ford: already a film giant in 1935! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec14f7a835cd44ff940658479de4b82a", "input": "Review: I got to see this just this last Friday at the Los Angeles film festival at Laemlee's on Beverly. This movie got the most applause of all the films that evening. Considering that two music videos opened first, I didn't know what to expect since they were very fast and attention grabbing, I wasn't sure I was ready for a short immediately. But to my surprise I really enjoyed this. I thought the main actor demon guy was really good. I was so impressed with his performance that I checked out his name. I was surprised to see that this was the Witchblade guy. He's gotten really good especially since then! Either that or he was given lousy roles or had been pushed by the director really hard for this short. The girl did an okay job. I guess its hard since it was her first performance and being so young. The dad did well also. There was a lot of really nice cg work for a short, both for this and the short playing next \"Mexican Hat\" which was also nice, but I enjoyed this the most because it had the most depth and emotion and I actually cared about the characters. The other was a very simple story. The story was quite illustrative and dark! It dealt with real topics using a more fantasy like approach to keep ADD people like me interested. We won't even talk about the last film in the block which I left. My only complaint is that I only wish I had seen more of the demon character and a little less of getting started, which is why I gave it a 9 out of 10. I also thought the end credits went a little slowly. Otherwise it was beautifully told, directed and edited. The timing was very nice with a complete change from the fast MTV editing done on everything nowadays. There will be more coming from this director in the future as well as the actor. I now will think of him as the Sorrows Lost actor not the Witchblade guy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33dffb2f338b469f8a076520c4f18bd4", "input": "Review: First I'd like to excuse my bad English.I'm not a HOSTEL-hardcore-fan, but I liked that movie nevertheless. Live Feed, however, SUCKED BIG TIME! I have never seen a gore-movie with superb acting, but hey, who's surprised? The acting in Live Feed was... well, not there! I've seen some commented this as it must have been a school project or something. Okey, but not by students in media or acting school. This was NO class at all! And what about the story? A really sad rip-off on Hostel. And what about the gore? What about the psychopathic torture scenes that supposed to make your guts twist and leave you cold-sweating? That was the most disappointing about the hole movie! Short, quick and NO edge. More like an execution rather than a torture. Okey, there where buckets of blood, but it didn't even look real. The slaughtering and the violence reminded more of Braindead than Hostel or any of the Saw-movies. And Braindead was fun! Okey, I laughed at Live Feed a couple of times, but that was more out of disappointment than out of sheer fun!So instead of wasting 80 minutes by watching Live Feed, watch ANYTHING else! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29c7c9c494d64aa482ead379d82a7194", "input": "Review: Lipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2389a2de92b5433185ccb1970c55d62b", "input": "Review: This is definitely one of the best kung fu movies ever, and may be one of the best movies ever... It's got a great plot that functions like a puzzle, with lots of intrigue and suspense. This film is full of cat and mouse games and deceptions, with people hiding their identities and their natures. The characters in this film live and breath much more than your average kung fu movie characters. They are all interesting and compelling and the movie does a good job at giving them scenes to show their personality's and desires.The fight scenes play out like little stories and many of them are very original and exciting. It has cool training sequences and martial arts skills that are so awesome they enter the realm of fantasy. There are 5 members of the poison clan each one with his own style that mimics the special skill of a venomous animal. The styles of each of these characters are fun to watch and you can see the techniques they use in training applied during the film... When this happens, The director uses quick cutting back to the training scene to draw a parallel. These cuts are accompanied by music changes and sound effects and the whole thing really works nicely.One thing about this movie that is very original is the way it treats death. The director Chang Cheh was obviously very concerned that the film not trivialize death. This makes some of the scenes in the movie much more effective. We actually care when people are killed in this film. This is because the camera lingers on the horror of death even when the bad guys are killed. Some of the sequences in this movie are truly gut wrenching. When characters go in search of vengeance you really feel their anger and pain.At the same time, this is also a fun movie. It has all the typical things you expect from a traditional kung fu film. There is bad dubbing, The characters are willing to fight at the drop of a hat. Some of the sound effects are hilarious and at times the behavior of the characters is incredibly unrealistic... all this just adds to the greatness of the film.And lets not forget that this director was a visual stylist much more gifted than most of his contemporaries. If you watch this movie closely you will notice that the technical prowess on display is virtuostic. Everything goes by so fast (because of the quick cutting style and the rapid camera movements of the genre) that it is easy to overlook how beautiful the movie really is. The lighting and composition are spectacular at times. The camera work and movement is extremely sophisticated along with very interesting fast paced editing... In the scenes that portray suspense and intrigue for example, imagine Hitchcock moving at about twice the speed. Chang Cheh was truly a master craftsman and artist who knew his genre and was able to produce important material while working within it's confines. He doesn't rattle the boat of the kung fu genre film, but in a subtle way his skills permeate every scene and every shot and they add greatly to the quality of the work. He is an important filmmaker who continues to influence many people.This is the real package A kung fu movie that delivers on every level. It's art, it's trash, it's emotionally moving, and it's fun, it has a true sense of morality, but doesn't allow that morality to get in the way of delivering good action. I recommend it to everybody whether you are a fan of this genre or not. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-458a099831514837af37c295e1ff1bc0", "input": "Review: *review may contain spoilers*predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbdf13e2522c4f9e8eea3726c2007763", "input": "Review: Bell, Book and Candle was one of the great pop culture phenomena of the mid-twentieth century, very similar to the phenoms we see today (back in the 70's - more than ten years later - there were still endless references to this film). It made Novak a huge star, put a nice item on Jack Lemon's resume, cast new light on Jimmy Stewart, and gave Lancaster and Gingold new avenues to explore in their careers (both went on to continue to play witches and other curious \"old bats\", in film and television).Along with the 40s movie I Married a Witch (which helped to make Veronica Lake an icon), Bell, Book and Candle inspired the grand film and TV fascination with all things witchy that began with Bewitched and has continued through Practical Magic, Worst Witch and Harry Potter.What I rarely see noted is that the movie is also a rather interesting alternative Xmas movie. The story takes place over the Christmas holidays, and, despite the fact that it is superficially about witchcraft, actually embodies a great deal of Xmas spirit (giving, love, family, self-sacrifice, etc).I will always watch this movie (have seen it several times since my first viewing in the early 90's) particularly if it is shown around or just after the holiday season. It has style, substance, a great cast, and terrific production values. And like Adam's Rib, it casually expresses ideas that were rather radical for its time, are radical even now (in both movies the female character is guileless and powerful), and so always seems ahead of the times. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f978472000714944b2b1167a3134be57", "input": "Review: THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22f08cdfe10044dbb40c46e013535e20", "input": "Review: Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d3ca5043caf7455aa7314be743e18576", "input": "Review: Aside from the great movie METROPOLIS, this is about the oldest pure sci-fi movie. While at times the film is a bit preachy and the acting can be a bit broad, it is a great film for two reasons. First, it is extremely original in both style and content. Even in the 21st century, there are no films I can think of that are anything like it. Second, for its time, the special effects were absolutely incredible--using matte paintings, models and huge casts to create amazing scenes of both a post-apocalyptic world and a vast city of tomorrow. Sure, you could sit back and knock the film because, by today's standards, the effects are only so-so. But, you must appreciate that this was state of the art when the film came out in 1936 and it must have really amazed audiences. In many ways, the sets look highly reminiscent of the \"modern cities\" featured at the 1939 WORLD'S FAIR.I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question \"are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?\" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27fd52a16de64e49a4b026187ff821a7", "input": "Review: RKO had a reputation for making folksy, homespun pieces of Americana.Anne Shirley (as Dawn O'Day) had been in films since she was a toddler. By 1933 she was in limbo - having played Ann Dvorak as a child in \"Three on a Match\" (1932) and a \"flower girl\" in both \"This Side of Heaven\" and \"The Key\" both in 1934. George Nicholls Jnr remembered Anne's work from a previous film and that's how she got this part. She also adopted Anne Shirley as her stage name. The memorable stories are there - Lady of Shallot in a leaky boat, the \"stolen\" brooch, the \"red hair\" incident. Anne was so right for the role of the chatty, heartwarming orphan. She was heartbreaking in her intensity, her eagerness to please and also her fiery temper. O.P. Heggie was wonderful as the understanding Matthew Cuthbert and Helen Westley was fine as the firm Marilla. Tom Brown was an excellent Gilbert Blythe. Gertrude Messinger, who had also been in films as a small child was fine as Diana Barry. Sara Haden proved she could play someone other than Aunt Millie in the Andy Hardy series, was Mrs. Barry. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c133eca111f0478894eb31e8d1fbed38", "input": "Review: This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b2dc0ce83874d7c82d33c97d9ca83b3", "input": "Review: This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2919d479f98407ea5ddb0c10f3b4b90", "input": "Review: From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.\"The House Where Evil Dwells\" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film \"Ju-On: The Grudge\" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f35903ea7a64db38d04057e75a745dc", "input": "Review: One of my favourite films. It has everything - rocking soundtrack, courtesy of Eddie Clark, ex Motorhead, loads of action, loads of laughs, totally ridiculous plot and the most wonderful '80's stereotypes as characters. Eddie, the put-upon nice guy, who just wants to be left alone to be different, Leslie (about as wet as they come), Nuke (the rock burn-out), Eddie's Mom (pathetic), Roger (the geek) and Ozzy as the preacher (surely he exists in America?). Then there are the boys (rich, vicious and stupid) and the girls (vacant, vain and stupid). What more could you ask for?Well, first of all, there's Sammi Curr, the rock star, an amalgam of every '80's badass rocker you can think of. What about that rocket firing guitar? Then there's the scene where Sammi pulls the old lady through the TV screen and smashes her up. And what does Roger do? Why, hoover her up, just like a good geek would. My favourite scene is where Tim Hainey gets his long overdue reward from Sammi via the wet finger in the plug - magic!If you were into rock in the '80's or just love ridiculous films like I do, then check this one out. It's available on DVD and very cheap so (trick or)treat yourself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ccfd8cb3f3d49e3b1fe7298e1b7ad61", "input": "Review: If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his \"has-been\" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say \"yo, Adrian!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3736398b0ed43b5a5512ca3325a7507", "input": "Review: Initially, I would have thought that Secret Sunshine had something critical to say of religion (and here being Christianity), and wondered if it would be something of a rant against the ills of blind faith, or the manipulative power of those who are supposedly holier than thou. Surprisingly, it was none of the sort and was largely non-judgemental, putting in place events as a matter of fact, and allowing the audience to draw their own judgement and conclusion.And I can't help but to chuckle at the role of Song Kang-ho, a man who's taken a liking for widower Shin-ae (Jeong Do-yeon), and starts going to church when she does. The reasons for church going are many I suppose, either to find inner peace, to seek help, being afraid of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell, to reaffirm faith, or even things like wanting to get married in a church, or to skirt chase (I kid you not). But to each his own reasons for turning up in church every Sunday and participating in prayer groups for fellowship, what is indeed dangerous, is when the underlying ulterior motives, do not get satisfied, and that's when frustration sets in. Or when you discover how hypocritical man can be, portraying one face inside the house of God, and displaying yet another outside.Shin-ae and her son Jun moves to the town of Miryang, which is the birthplace of her deceased husband. Wanting to start life anew, she opens up a piano shop to give lessons, though in discovering her new found freedom and in a moment's lack of good judgement, has another tragedy befall her. And that takes one hour to get to. Secret Sunshine really took its time to get to this point, where things then begin to get slightly more interesting with Shin-ae now taking to embracing religion to deal with and accept her current state, reveling in the comfort that religion, and fellow believers, can offer.What began as crying out for sympathy turns into acceptance and belief that religion offers that silver bullet to solve the ills of all mankind, and sometimes you wonder if it's because of your personal myopic view of what the almighty is doing for you, that you begin to adopt a somewhat selfish opinion that everything's good going your way, and in Shin-ae's case, her magnanimous attitude in wanting to forgive others who had trespassed against her, forgetting something very fundamental that it the feeling can cut both ways too.The last act is probably the most fun of the lot as it says plenty, where most of us can identify with - why me, and why not someone else, as we rage against our faith and start questioning, unfortunately, with no hard and fast answers available. It is then either we fall by the wayside, or continue with destructive deeds so rebelliously. But somehow the plug gets carefully pulled in Secret Sunshine so as not to offend, and what could have been an ugly character mouthpiece, got muted.If you bite into the hype this movie is generating, then perhaps you'll realize only Jeong Do- yeon's excellent portrayal is worth mentioning, as she totally owns her role as the widow Shin-ae who is probably the most unluckiest person on Earth in having to deal with that many tragedies over a short period of time, and if you look at it carefully, most of which are of her own doing. Watching her transformation, is worth the ticket price, and despite having my personal favourite Korean actor Song Kang-ho in the movie, this is something he just breezed right through. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-76e4a0a367f54c13941ba8780d933711", "input": "Review: Cypher is a clever, effective and eerie film that delivers. Its good premise is presented well and it has its content delivered in an effective manner but also in a way the genre demands. Although one could immediately label the film a science fiction, there is a little more to it. It has it's obvious science fiction traits but the film resembles more of a noir/detective feel than anything else which really adds to the story.The film, overall, plays out like it's some kind of nightmare; thus building and retaining a good atmosphere. We're never sure of what exactly is going on, we're never certain why certain things that are happening actually are and we're not entirely sure of certain people, similar to having a dream – the ambiguity reigns over us all – hero included and I haven't seen this pulled off in such a manner in a film before, bar Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Going with the eeriness stated earlier, Cypher presents itself with elements of horror as well as detective, noir and science fiction giving the feeling that there's something in there for everyone and it integrates its elements well.There is also an espionage feeling to the film that aids the detective side of the story. The mystery surrounding just about everyone is disturbing to say the least and I find the fact that the character of Rita Foster (Liu), who is supposed to resemble a femme fatale, can be seen as less of a threat to that of everything else happening around the hero: People whom appear as friends actually aren't, people who say they're helping are actually using and those that appear harmless enough are actually deadlier than they look. Despite a lot of switching things around, twisting the plot several times and following orders that are put across in a way to make them seem that the world will end if they're not carried out; the one thing that seems the most dangerous is any romantic link or connection with Lucy Liu's character – and she's trying to help out(!) The film maintains that feeling of two sides battling a war of espionage, spying and keeping one up on its employees and opponents. The whole thing plays out like some sort of mini-Cold war; something that resembles the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. in their war of word's heyday and it really pulls through given the black, bleak, often CGI littered screen that I was glued to. What was also rather interesting and was a nice added touch was the travel insert shot of certain American states made to resemble computer microchips as our hero flies to and from his stated destinations – significant then how the more he acts on his and Foster's own motivation this sequence disappears because he's breaking away from the computerised, repetitive, controlled life that he's being told to live and is branching out.Cyhper is very consistent in its content and has all the elements of a good film. To say it resembles the first Jason Bourne film, only set in the sci-fi genre, isn't cutting it enough slack but you can see the similarities; despite them both being released in the same year. Like I mentioned earlier, there feels like there is something in this film for everyone and if you can look past the rather disappointing ending that a few people may successfully predict, you will find yourself enjoying this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4617645755504d1480addd9e0ed6b5b3", "input": "Review: Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd087c7373044b9da6fb4ee0727f380e", "input": "Review: I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was \"he deserves it, for making such a bad movie\". Don't waste your time or money on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f00391f6f73450280fd3a9dfe0105e5", "input": "Review: Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the \"Wood\"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3640d9a88cc472c97de3bb8f102da92", "input": "Review: If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then \"House of Games\" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.\"House of Games\" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).\"House of Games\" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1e064f90d3249bca2463173113fc11a", "input": "Review: It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an \"esperanto\" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88c158a4b1b74698b9dc2319ad16ec48", "input": "Review: OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles. Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as \"manos the hands of fate.\"The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-710590f5526a45a288d186093d86fac9", "input": "Review: The film maybe goes a little far, but if you love the show it's what you expect. It's not a bad movie; it's actually pretty good. If you don't like the show, don't see the movie. It starts off a little slow maybe, but then picks up and turns out to be pretty funny. There are even a few \"heart-wrenching\" scenes toward the end. After all the protagonists have gone through these scences do get to you. Also Jerry throws in his opinion why his show upsets people and justifies his show's existience. He's got a pretty good point. We care so much about the private details of celebrities lives, so why is it wrong that these people tell their private lives on national TV, too. If they were celebrities we wouldn't mind at all, we'd eat it up. Do we not like his guest doing this just because they're poor white trash and it reminds us that there really is poverty in this world and not just rich glamous movie stars living in a \"Leave it to Beaver\" world? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-000fa5d4fe6b4e6584dec3c93dae95ed", "input": "Review: Dressed to Kill understandably made a bit of a ruckus when first released in 1980: you had \"Police Girl\" in a role that was mega-erotic, as Angie Dicknson played a sexually frustrated housewife looking for good times in all the wrong museums (and there into apartment elevators), plus Nancy Allen as a call-girl, Michael Caine as Norman Bates's sophisticated New York cousin, and enough lurid imagery to last two movies of the period. Today it's slightly less incriminating by standards and such, though the unrated version has some of the most \"hot\" content of any of De Palma's films, at least in his quasi-auteur period of the 70s and early 80s, where he seemed to repeat themes over and over, ideas taken right off the film-reels of Hitchcock classics and given a tawdry uplift. It's a simple tale that one partly already saw in Sisters, and then again to an extent in Body Double, and also in Blow Out. Cutie Allen plays call-girl Liz Blake, who has to clear her name of suspicion of killing Kate (Dickinson, in full blown 'MILF' mode), after being found with a razor, the murder weapon from Dr. Elliott's office (Michael Caine, stone-cold performance most of the way).From the start, which De Palma seems to do as a way of setting up a dangerous sexual fantasy scene as a way of topping the opening scene of Carrie (which, perhaps, he does just in editing terms), we get a series of technical knock-out turns through the point of view of style itself: the tracking shots in the museum, meant to stir up more of a fascination with the process itself, of following and wanting to be followed, than any kind of tension; the chase through the subway (a precursor to Carlito's Way) is done with a precise level of suspense, meanwhile, with a slightly exploitation bit thrown in with the black gang; the character of Peter, Kate's son (Keith Gordon), who plays what is essentially a younger version of the real life De Palma as a kid (science geek, obsessed with Hitchcock and voyeurism). And it's all entertaining and entrancing as hell as something that comes close to a real synthesis of what makes De Palma's thrillers so unique while being so self-consciously untainted by a fearless attitude of film-making.On the other hand, that same self-consciousness ended up coming back to bite the director in the butt a few times in recent years, and somehow in Dressed to Kill it starts to become very erratic and disappointing as the story has to wrap itself up. As the Psycho themes come together even more apparently (man who wants a sex-change, doesn't even think he's killing as it is *she* who is doing it), there is an expository scene in the police station that makes the aforementioned Hitch film look like an astonishing psychological revelation. And the final scenes at Peter's house, also calling painfully into recollection a much more accomplished sequence in Carrie, are meant for a manipulation that even for De Palma is asking for it; the final shot especially, albeit a master's class in how to copy yourself. Yet there is a very deranged and, within itself, perfect scene at the mental hospital amid this confused denouement, where the doctor does some work on a nurse, to which all the other inmates act like animals in a zoo, and an over-head shot going up and up over the scene is one of the best shots of sexual/general perversion ever captured on film.A shame then that the film ends on such a strange and unsettling manner, where up until then it is a remarkable piece of pulp cinema, where class is all around in the technical aspects (soft lighting, intricate camera movements seemingly so simple) amid subject matter that should be found in the mix of paperbacks for 25 cents. It's no masterpiece, but I'd certainly take it over most of the director's recent thrillers any day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51893033ff68491d835e3315ba32abe4", "input": "Review: I had several problems with the movie: (1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f1fec9c5c6446e498446d4cc21fb071", "input": "Review: You probably all already know this by now, but 5 additional episodes never aired can be viewed on ABC.com I've watched a lot of television over the years and this is possibly my favorite show, ever. It's a crime that this beautifully written and acted show was canceled. The actors that played Laura, Whit, Carlos, Mae, Damian, Anya and omg, Steven Caseman - are all incredible and so natural in those roles. Even the kids are great. Wonderful show. So sad that it's gone. Of course I wonder about the reasons it was canceled. There is no way I'll let myself believe that Ms. Moynahan's pregnancy had anything to do with it. It was in the perfect time slot in this market. I've watched all the episodes again on ABC.com - I hope they all come out on DVD some day. Thanks for reading. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e3312fdd429433b9c2681c11d0cfe6d", "input": "Review: I never was an avid viewer of \"Crocodile Hunter\", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers! Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from \"Crocodile Hunter\" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical \"Crocodile Hunter\" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, \"The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course\" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in \"Crocodile Hunter\" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-67eca287026e40778f846bfb6b4774d9", "input": "Review: WWF Survivor Series 2001This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd397a47f935439388799cb29a8c6aa0", "input": "Review: After his classic film noir homage Chinatown Roman Polanski returned to the themes that had given him his greatest hits in the 60s with this creepy psychological horror which, like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, deals with the paranoia and claustrophobia generated by apartment living.Claustrophobic environments are the ones which Polanski is best at creating, and this has to be the most suffocating and confined picture he ever created. The emphasis on side walls and distant vanishing points is greater than ever, and even in the small number of exterior scenes the sky is rarely glimpsed. But The Tenant is not just confined spatially, but also in the intensity with which it focuses on its protagonist. Trelkovsky, played by Polanski himself is not only in every scene, he is in virtually every shot. When he is not on screen more often than not the camera becomes Trelkovsky's point of view. And of course almost everywhere he looks he sees his own reflection staring back at him in a mirror.I can't think of any film that is more about the internalisation and solitude of one character. Some psychological thrillers, like M or Peeping Tom, manipulate us into feeling sorry for the mentally ill protagonist. Others, like Psycho, attempt in-depth scientific analysis of his mental condition. The Tenant fits into neither of these categories – it simply immerses us completely inside Trelkovsky's experience without demanding we actually understand or appreciate what is going on inside his head. We feel his paranoia and obsession even though it is constantly revealed to us that they are irrational.Polanski was also a master of the slowly unfolding horror film. Often in his horrors there is an ambiguity as to whether there is actually anything sinister going on, but they are among the most effective at frightening audiences. Why? Precisely because they unfold so slowly and invest so much time in painstakingly setting up situations that they immerse the viewer in paranoia. A much later Polanski horror, The Ninth Gate is a bit of a mess plot-wise but at least it still manages to achieve that creeping sense of dread.This is a rare chance to see Polanski himself in a major role. His talent in front of the camera was as good as behind it, and he is absolutely perfect as the meek Trelkovsky. Another standout performance is that of the all-too-often overlooked Shelley Winters as the concierge. In actual fact it is rather a stellar cast, although many of the familiar faces look out of place in this strange, Gothic European movie. Also sadly many of the French actors in supporting roles are atrociously dubbed in the English language version.The Tenant is more polished and less pretentious than Repulsion, but it lacks the suspense and the character that make Rosemary's Baby so engrossing and entertaining. The Tenant is good, with no major flaws, and Polanski was really on top form as a director, but it's not among his most gripping works. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e203514249d43b49d79008135dc35c8", "input": "Review: I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian. fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy. I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank godNow our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey\"ish\".The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again. So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fd9c00ed0c04d52bfdd6018e2101563", "input": "Review: Caught the tail end of this movie channel surfing through the cable movie channels, and was so intrigued I sought out the next showing.I really didn't know what to expect after reading the program summary, but I came away from this movie feeling quite disturbed and distressed. It also gave me as adult who attended high school in the 80's, a little better insight into what our kids have to contend with these days.The fact that you don't see the shooting only adds to the chillness of the plot. To see both child and adult alike struggle to comprehend and come to terms with the senseless shootings was at times overwhelming. And will admit that I shed quite a few tears throughout.On the whole, not a movie that I would seek out to what, however I am sure glad I did see it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ad135ff22ac44fe8a9c94fc79ff314f", "input": "Review: Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that \"Lili Marleen\" (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's \"women movies\" like \"The Marriage of Maria Braun\" (1979) and \"Lola\" (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that \"stories can be told much better with women than with men\", because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, \"women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner\". Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play \"The City, the Garbage and the Death\" (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title \"Shadow of Angels\" (1976).Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their \"misuse\" of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because \"good\" and \"bad\" are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69d837b4687647d5ad13b3643516c378", "input": "Review: I enjoyed this film very much. Many Korean people will feel familiar with this film because many of them have tutors when they go to school. Cinematography was average. The movie would have been better if the angel or the movement of the camera was more irregular. Editing, however, was very neat and unusual.The acting was also very good. Kim Ha Neul usually played an innocent, weak girl in the Korean soap-opaeras. But this time, she plays a cute tomboy very well. Kwon Sang Woo also plays his role very believable.What I like the most about this film is, the emotion of the characters are not too exaggerated. There are many Korean romance films that the characters cry river before the audience and I always thought it was very stale. There was no such crap in this movie.Very funny and well-done. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f409eea0f3b43cbb594164ef77278b1", "input": "Review: It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. \"The Amati Girls\" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since \"For Roseanna\".With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in \"The Amati Girls\". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24f3ae2fe7a3443394476804fb7d8005", "input": "Review: (aka: DEMONS III)Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee. The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.3 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6e1d961c74c46df90f51224f7df8ba9", "input": "Review: In my book \"Basic Instinct\" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the \"There is no smoking in this room\" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fd2123c63444fcab7c2e39c8578ab71", "input": "Review: I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a \"personal note\" from the Director, asking for the audience's \"understanding\" for the \"many challenges\" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this \"film\" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged \"movie\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb4567a3314d4f5d84284d52ac06179b", "input": "Review: Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. \"DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!\" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d568b87dc6964b03b0e3dcb9772fcb8c", "input": "Review: Billy Wilder is co-credited for the story, and his unsentimental touch is noticeable in this quite original tale of ghostwriting songwriters who both work for burnt-out music legend Oliver Courtney. The obvious misunderstandings are gotten out of the way quite quickly, thank heaven, and what remains is a witty and breezy concoction with some fine songs (and some more forgettable ones), Crosby at his most charming, a great turn by Broadway legend Mary Martin and Basil Rathbone and Oscar Levant providing most of the cynical barbs (Levant is in rare form and his quips haven't dated at all). A delightful surprise, and recommended for all fans of the genre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86dfcf003d6e485b9f0d87d1f5de7eed", "input": "Review: speaking solely as a movie, i didn't really liked it. not because there were no FX or because we had a single cabin as the scenario for the whole film, actually that was what kept me watching it.i didn't like it because the acting was shady, his \"friends\" are all happy and then they're mad, but you have no idea why; then they take distinct roles, one is the believer, other is the antagonist, but they never really make the point! also, the lighting was terrible and i'm just mentioning technical issues.in a few words, i thing the movie could have just had a \"ok i'm outta here!\" from some characters. like the lady who doesn't want to hear his version of the bible.about the story itself, everyone is free to write about what they want, and the story is proof of some good writing and imagination. i credit the book author for that, hence, my 4/10.so, in the end, hear the man's story believe it or not, just don't spend the whole time acting like you believe him and being shocked at what he says, and at the same time moving around and making jokes like you don't believe him.Coherence.thanks for reading ;) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8fec423ab1294f15a3d051502ef1f6eb", "input": "Review: \"An album of songs so old everyone thinks they're new.\" This film has the elusive combination of pace and mood that set some films apart from the opening moments. And why not? Towering talent from Dame Judith Dench as a widow who plays saxaphone with a street musician to help him get the songs right, to Olympia Dukakis as the merry widow living in a Scottish castle on the alimony of her many marriages, to Ian Holm as the drummer who loved all the members of a World War II all girl (more or less) swing band. But wait, there's more. Add in Leslie Caron on bass, and the incomparable Clio Laine on lead vocal, at last, and the Blonde Bombshells are the hottest band in England since the Beatles. Well, OK, not really, but this movie is a winner.Elizabeth (Dench) spends the whole film trying to reunite the Blonde Bombshells to play at her granddaughter's school dance. And before you roll your eyes, imagine how difficult and courageous it would be for a bunch of sexegenarian women to step onstage in front of the Britney Spears generation following an act called \"Open Wound.\"In an age when actresses careers are over by the time they're 30, most bands' second album is a greatest hits compilation, and music more than a month old has almost no chance of airplay, it's great to see real talent, real music and a really good movie come from, where else, the BBC.I love this movie, and I know I'll watch it many more times, and enjoy it more each time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-00412a3179784065ae124d4af03b9517", "input": "Review: I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...(9/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b85b957e330245a385221c880909bd6d", "input": "Review: What we have here is a damn good little nineties thriller that, while perhaps lacking in substance, still provides great entertainment throughout it's running time and overall does everything you could possibly want a film of this nature to do. I saw this film principally because it was directed by John Dahl - a highly underrated director behind great thrillers such as The Last Seduction, Rounders and Roadkill. I figured that if this film was up to standard of what I've already seen from the director, it would be well worth watching - and Red Rock West is certainly a film that Dahl can be proud of. The plot focuses on the overly moral Michael; a man travelling across America looking for work. He ends up finding it one day when he stumbles upon a bar in Red Rock County - only catch is that the job is to murder a man's wife. He's been mistaken for a killer named Lyle, but instead of doing the job; he plays both sides against each other and eventually plans to make a getaway. However, his attempts to escape are unsuccessful and he finds himself in a bad situation when the real Lyle turns up...John Dahl appears to enjoy setting thrillers on the road; he did it three years earlier with Kill Me Again, and again almost a decade on from this film with Roadkill. It's not hard to see why Dahl chooses this sort of location, as it provides a fabulous atmosphere for a thriller the likes of this one. Dahl also provides his film with a 'film noir' like atmosphere, as the plot mainly focuses on the central character and the word he is plunged into is full of dark and mysterious characters. The acting is largely very good, with Nicholas Cage doing an excellent job in the lead role, and getting A-class support from Lara Flynn Boyle, J.T. Walsh and, of course, Dennis Hopper; who once again commands the screen with his over the top performance. It has to be said that the second half of the film isn't as gripping as the first, but Red Rock West certainly is never boring and the way that Dahl orchestrates the grand finale is excellent in that all the central characters get to be a part of it. Overall, Red Rock West is a film that you're unlikely to regret watching. It's thrilling throughout, and you can't ask for much more than that! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4c1c69317d44affaa644d1b75930b89", "input": "Review: Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a \"strafing\" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-61f3328fc26640378da6dd104b14c06b", "input": "Review: This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-671d2c5af8b94aecadb6be0da01fa5e0", "input": "Review: In my opinion, October Sky is one of the best movies of 1999...It totally has everything an emotional drama movie would need, like, wonderful story and good character interactions. October Sky will remain in heart for as long as I can remember, and I just have to say a very special thanks to those who have created this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14b8ecae2a9e444ea5720be518450619", "input": "Review: (aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)*spoiler*This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e98d26149494358946ad9e4f9e79dff", "input": "Review: This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a04d955bf9d6452599599581ef3bda8b", "input": "Review: The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-211ba89f75ce4bd68b026354802b919f", "input": "Review: Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.In short, this remains a quality \"popcorn\" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ed9377d469a4bd08d8014a2394fd1ea", "input": "Review: Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f608122393994b308a7f366fcdb98b43", "input": "Review: Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his \"Chandler\" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9902c174cc24a6c8c92a619e5848393", "input": "Review: I read the reviews before i watched this movie, and i didn't believe them. I love crap movies and i expected this one to be average. It wasn't. This film makes Camp Blood 1 and 2 look like greats. The film contains bad acting, poor sound, poor confusing storyline, bad makeup- and it bored me so much i turned it off. even the nudity was rubbish! Did they even have a budget for this film? I don't think they did. You can tell if your gonna like this film or not in the first 5 minutes. if u want a good cheesy gory film go watch toxic avenger 4 or even camp blood. Avoid this trash - I watched it on TV and felt riped off, so don't spend anything on it. The best part is probably the end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3bda7fe7b6e4b088553a21dbdbd01e5", "input": "Review: I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-70ea2ce489f14f76bed3d33de4e90598", "input": "Review: From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41e861cbd03c4dcba6151f803a9abcc3", "input": "Review: I first saw this as a child living in East London. The scars of Hitlers Luftwaffe were all too evident and the landscape of the movie was reminiscent of our street. I remember having nightmares after seeing it. The odd thing is, it really hasn't dated if viewed as a piece of social history in Cinema fiction. Apart from a globally destructive war, the scale of the machines was badly awry, more Nano-Technology now, but overall, an excellent and well-crafted work. It was interesting to see how space travel was perceived back then. I would think that firing a spacecraft from a gigantic gun would almost certainly kill the astronauts. However, much was right. Mans desire for war, mans inhumanity to man. The means of war as a catalyst for development. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e58f1ef07d8c4b70a76ec7480704b45c", "input": "Review: Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond… He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy…But there were vital differences… Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively… Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous… There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner…\"The Kennel Murder Case\" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947… The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery – exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling \"locked room murder,\" the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects… Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type… William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular \"The Thin Man\" at MGM… Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-644060fcedc14765a2b8006abfca3c74", "input": "Review: The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d47d8ec6bb074fdc908a9e7b24ecbed1", "input": "Review: If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws: 1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10) 2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10) 3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10) 4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10) 5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10) 6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10) I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.(7/10) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b10c52b2de0246808afda1a493447840", "input": "Review: I had to endure teen-aged, high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. I really do not care about high-school girls fretting about their relationships. I've spent my time in Hell dealing with such issues and I care nothing about fictional teenies going through \"lite\" versions of the horrors I endured. I want science fiction. That's the only reason I'm here. There were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. We FINALLY see a proto-Cylon. It was good but with one problem. Its red eye-dot would lock onto an object of interest. We all know that Cylon eyedots always scan back and forth, giving the machine a map of the world. The red eye-dot does not ever stop moving back and forth.I really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fda153884ea4b32ac9b23a54bc4a22b", "input": "Review: \"An album of songs so old everyone thinks they're new.\" This film has the elusive combination of pace and mood that set some films apart from the opening moments. And why not? Towering talent from Dame Judith Dench as a widow who plays saxaphone with a street musician to help him get the songs right, to Olympia Dukakis as the merry widow living in a Scottish castle on the alimony of her many marriages, to Ian Holm as the drummer who loved all the members of a World War II all girl (more or less) swing band. But wait, there's more. Add in Leslie Caron on bass, and the incomparable Clio Laine on lead vocal, at last, and the Blonde Bombshells are the hottest band in England since the Beatles. Well, OK, not really, but this movie is a winner.Elizabeth (Dench) spends the whole film trying to reunite the Blonde Bombshells to play at her granddaughter's school dance. And before you roll your eyes, imagine how difficult and courageous it would be for a bunch of sexegenarian women to step onstage in front of the Britney Spears generation following an act called \"Open Wound.\"In an age when actresses careers are over by the time they're 30, most bands' second album is a greatest hits compilation, and music more than a month old has almost no chance of airplay, it's great to see real talent, real music and a really good movie come from, where else, the BBC.I love this movie, and I know I'll watch it many more times, and enjoy it more each time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7a2456f1d2a4f258cd9ed4a49db7839", "input": "Review: \"Gandhi as a husband and father?\" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as \"must-watch-once\". 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d92c2cb7f7ac4747a58ce7fb4917dddf", "input": "Review: One of the best of the Fred Astaire and Giner Rogers films. Great music by Irving Berlin. Solid support from Randolph Scott, Harriet Nelson, Lucille Ball, Betty Grable, Frank Jenks, and Astrid Allwyn.Terrific songs include \"Let Yourself Go,\" \"Let's Face the Music,\" and \"Putting All My Eggs in One Basket.\" The last song is introduced by Astaire playing a jazzy piano and then a cute dance with Rogers. Rogers also sings \"Let Yourself Go\" with Grable among the backup singers.Harriet Nelson (then Hilliard) sings two nice songs and plays Rogers' mousy sister. \"Get Thee Behind Me\" is a song that sticks with you for days. She also sings \"But Where Are You?\" Snappy and fast paced, this entry in the Astaire-Rogers series is one of the better ones. The classic and amazing beautiful finale, \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is among the best-known of their numbers. Rogers wears one of the great dresses in movie history.... a shimmering sequined number that swirls around her legs as she dances (weighted hem) and is also slightly see through. Just gorgeous. This is the number that Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters re-created in Pennies from Heaven.Randolph Scott seems an odd choice as Astaire's pal but he also appeared in their Roberta with Irene Dunne. Luckily he does not attempt to sing or dance. It seems that Grable and Ball would have had bigger parts in 1936 but they have a few scenes and make little impact. Allwyn has the bigger role but is only OK.Rogers has one of her best solo numbers in the series with \"Let Yourself Go\".... Jazzy and thumping, it's a great song.Fun all the way, although I got tired of \"We Joined the Navy\" after the third time.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54e40331c2f745ddab90e6f2da637c0b", "input": "Review: A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ce1f5f3452944178e2809e49062072b", "input": "Review: A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's \"Comandante\" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American \"caudillos\". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film \"we're making history\", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-141f1ccad19e4ba6844315da8f3c92e0", "input": "Review: I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with \"Einstein\" playing \"Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star\" on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is \"only a grease monkey\" is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cde7a0e735d444618eeb9cdc18879f30", "input": "Review: The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f9be249aa56437eb7642109a173f01f", "input": "Review: It's hard to find an outright bad historical drama that's based on the life of any number of British monarchs. Just take a well respected British or Australian actor, make things look pretty, and you're guaranteed a formula for Oscar success.The Young Victoria is no exception, getting just about everything right, the cinematography striking and beautiful, with soft lights and lush colors and fabrics. Starring Emily Blunt in a role she can finally soar in, the film begins with Victoria's 18th birthday and moves through the intrigue and issues that surrounded her eventual rise to the throne and her famous marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend). As the young Victoria herself laments, she's moved like a chess pawn by a variety of parties as she finds her footing and her voice as one of Britain's most influential rulers.While this moving around the chess board is fairly typical territory, it is the development of Victoria's relationship with Albert that makes the film slightly more interesting. I confess: I have a degree in history with a specialization in the Victorian era, so I'm a bit attached to these figures. Despite their many flaws as rulers, Victoria and Albert were some of the first leaders devoted to improving civilization for their people. They left their legacy in the arts, in public health and education, and in Victoria's conservative views and mourning culture after Albert's death. But these things are only briefly hinted at during the film.It is fairly well established that Victoria and Albert were not only madly in love, but held a level of respect for each other not usually seen between monarchs in arranged marriages. Even if it did occur behind the scenes, their's was certainly one of the best known. Blunt and and Friend have just the right type of chemistry to do the famous pair justice, the proper mix of restraint and desperation. It's a different love, not usually shown on screen, especially in this sort of film. It's encouraging to finally see a relationship in which man and woman are on a equal playing field.But we don't get to see that love enough. While the filmmakers try to fit the affair amongst the political trappings, it doesn't quite build up the sort of momentum needed to keep the tension high. Also, without delving into the more advanced important public work of the pair, things feel a bit in limbo, superficial instead of intimate, and sometimes confusing. It's not as big an issue during the film, but afterward, the effects wear off rather quickly and you find yourself trying to remember what you just watched, despite the perfect performances by the leads, most noticeably Blunt who even captures the famous monarch's expressions.For as much as it tries, Victoria succeeds on many levels but lacks that certain sparkle that would take it from solid to classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d55b8b33af23459fb157b8b48ad4bf3d", "input": "Review: My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e9952d202d34ccbb3a38ff8f783c067", "input": "Review: *** Spoilers*My dad had taped this movie for me when I was 3. By age 5, I had watched it over 400 times. I just watched it and watched it. And I still do today! It has a grim storyline, a lamb's mother is killed by a wolf--a very emotional scene--and wants to become a wolf, like him. After years of training, the lamb is made into a really REALLY evil looking thing. He and the wolf travel to his old barn, but he cannot kill the lambs, no matter how much he wishes to. He ends up killing the wolf, but is no longer seen as a lamb by his former friends, and can't return to his previous way of life.The art is beautiful, the songs are..well, okay, and the voice acting is better than some things today.All in all, you just *have* to see this movie, it is a great masterpiece. Although, it's very hard to find today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a662574cb6b24fa9beb6e427087a5e52", "input": "Review: Yaitate!! Japan is a really fun show and I really like it! It was shown in our country just recently in Hero TV and ABS-CBN every 5:30. It is about Azuma Kazuma who is trying to fulfill his dream to make Japanese bread that will represent his country. He is working in the Southern Toyo branch of Pantasia and he is also helping his friend (Tsukino Azusagawa) along with other bakers (like Kawachi Kyousuke and Kanmuri Shigeru) to beat St. Pierre and take control of Pantasia. They fight other skillful bakers from many other countries and not only learn to make different kinds of bread but also learn to cook other food. It is a really funny and unique anime because they also mimic characters from other anime(like Naruto, Detective Conan and One Piece)and famous people from real life. It is one of the best works of Takashi Haschiguchi and is really a must-see for people of different ages. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d54601e2a28436c8e67369abe04b55e", "input": "Review: I liked this movie a lot. The animation was well done and the romance was cute. I liked most of Bryan Adams' songs and the Hans Zimmer score was excellent. What a lot of people don't realize is how well it relates to the Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now themes (what happens when so-called \"civilization\" invades someone elses home, what does it mean to be \"civilized\" etc.). The opening scenery and music were very stirring. The film is a lament to an America that was once beautiful. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3b00c48517af4603803f069c505ec166", "input": "Review: Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying \"Back Story\" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed \"is not a nice person\"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a \"theatrical release\" version and a \"restored\" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the \"restored\" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-72e44ad28d454b05a4b5f161324ab968", "input": "Review: Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home \"renovated.\" That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with \"Low Rider\" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and \"pimped\" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at \"Makeover\" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eff1aa080df847308936520389ca776b", "input": "Review: Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances. Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name \"Brotherly love\". \"Country dance\" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42fb21fffd7241e8a09bf1fc27173de7", "input": "Review: Bela made 9 pics for Monogram, but it was only at THIS one, the 4TH, that things started to come together. All the rest in the series would use this one as the essential template for production, writing and character development. From here on, better or worse, the series would also deal with one essential theme: a scientist (usually Bela) makes experiments in the basement or the old house (sometimes IN the basement in the old house) that causes things to go blooey. This was also the first time that Art Director Dave Milton got a chance to spread his wings. He came on board for BLACK DRAGONS, the flick before, but THIS one is where he gets to make his craft start to click. Lewis made great atmosphere for next to nothing, and was around for all the rest of the Monograms. Casting is key in these, and it's a pretty good one B movie wise, here. You get Barclay and Harlen (also from BLACK DRAGONS),along with Russell, who would star in Lewtons' CAT PEOPLE movies..and Rosetto, from SPOOKS RUN WILD...a nice slice of Poverty Row talent. If you have limited time and budget, start with this one...it sums up everything they had learned up to this point, and gives you something to compare the rest to. The plot? Bela steals gland juice to keep his nasty wife young. They both like to sleep in coffins. If you can read that and smile, the rest will be easy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7176478d2ef46f3bef53aca3ec1aeba", "input": "Review: For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebea3b42f2294cdb87ac90fb4bc7cec4", "input": "Review: Anyone interested in pop music, and not familiar with British music trends of the late-seventies, should be sure to watch Breaking Glass at least once. The movie, about a young woman's quest to make her mark in the music world, captures the times perfectly, from the overt sexism, rough economic times, social upheaval, to the shift in pop culture from rough-and-tumble punk to terribly fey and pretentious Futurism/New Romanticism. The music and fashion styles created daily in Britain in the late-seventies are still being rediscovered and recycled (there really has been nothing new since 1980). This was a dazzling time, and Breaking Glass both tells a very personal story and surveys the cultural landscape, and does both extremely well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2007d35008246648eb5bdfb337e8428", "input": "Review: Needless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e94b38f0d5a4a61ab638d5388a0d36a", "input": "Review: I have no idea what the other reviewer is talking about- this was a wonderful movie, and created a sense of the era that feels like time travel. The characters are truly young, Mary is a strong match for Byron, Claire is juvenile and a tad annoying, Polidori is a convincing beaten-down sycophant... all are beautiful, curious, and decadent... not the frightening wrecks they are in Gothic.Gothic works as an independent piece of shock film, and I loved it for different reasons, but this works like a Merchant and Ivory film, and was from my readings the best capture of what the summer must have felt like. Romantic, yes, but completely rekindles my interest in the lives of Shelley and Byron every time I think about the film. One of my all-time favorites. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb1dc676f4ab4e05a2fdde34c9d2825a", "input": "Review: This is comedy as it once was and comparing this with the two remakes, THE MONEY PIT and ARE WE DONE YET?, only points out all the more how the 40's movie makers had a flair for comedy which has since, regretfully, been lost.I was 15 when I first saw this and even at that tender age, there was much I could laugh at. Now of course being familiar with adult frustrations, I see a whole lot that I missed as a youth.The three main actors...Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas...interacted perfectly, but the core of the movie lies in the frustrations encountered in achieving a dream. It's never as easy and free of unseen complications as one envisions.All in all, this is a classic comedy which still stands above the attempts to remake it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40bf0527e30e48bfa200a598123d94a6", "input": "Review: If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59c8c92dfd844850ba85a951fe4b52a2", "input": "Review: I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-092d3ac5b2d648b3b05e2aedba437bce", "input": "Review: Okay. This Movie is a Pure Pleasure. It has the Ever so Violent Horror Mixed with a Little Suspense and a Lot of Black Comedy. The Dentist Really Starts to loose His Mind and It's Enjoyable to Watch him do so. This Movie is for Certain People, Though. Either you'll Completely Love it or You Will Totally Hate It. A Good Movie to Rent and Watch When you don't Got Anything else to do. Also Recommended: Psycho III Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b495436d6f9b40439a97fe25af1b3c45", "input": "Review: fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-805d95decc81472493e89afcb565bbe1", "input": "Review: First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three \"American Pie Presents\" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?I also have a few other questions too.Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer \"I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares\" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf6524c6309148ae9b68879567aaf57a", "input": "Review: I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-421416f59f6843a0a8a20b2f7ce901b9", "input": "Review: The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c5a9ea1fd1b84719a2588098e50fc273", "input": "Review: The 60's is a great movie(I saw it completely in one night) about the hippy movement in the late 60's. Although the title would suggest otherwise the first 5 years of the 60's are not really important in this film.The main character of the movie is Michael,a political activist who goes on the road in the US against the Vietnam-war. There he meets his girlfriend,Sarah.Michael's brother,Brian,goes to Vietnam to fight(what a surprise!).He comes back from the war and changes in a \"Tom Cruise Born on the fourth of July\" look a like and then into a Hippy.His dad is a pro-vietnam war type of guy(what a surprise!!).Michael's sister Kate gets pregnant from a Rock & Roll artist and runs away from home and goes to San Francisco during the summer of love. The ending is very poor(father becomes a liberal and everybody is happy),but I let this slip away from my vote(the rest of the movie is very good!). The performances by the actors are pretty good and the soundtrack of the movie is absolutely brilliant. All the main events of the sixties are in the movie,like the murders on JFK and Martin Luther King aswell as the big hippy protests,the summer of love and Woodstock! Look closely for Wavy\"Woodstock Speaker\"Gravy(What we have in mind is breakfast in bed for 400.000!) as a first aid employee at the Woodstock festival!In the end,the 60's is a beautiful movie about a beautiful decade! 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bb67d95828747a4bd973a527ac90240", "input": "Review: Think Pierce Brosnan and you think suave, dapper, intelligent James Bond. In this movie, Brosnan plays against type - and has lots of fun doing so (as does the audience). This is a film about a hired assassin who befriends a harried businessman... and it works!This is a fun movie, with very good scenes (a riveting, on-the-edge Brosnan and a good, compliant \"off\"-the-edge Kinnear have some good lines). My only cavil is that Hope Davis, playing the oh-so-tolerant wife (\"Can I see your gun?\") doesn't appear more often: she could have been a marvellous foil to these men.This movie is like a matador: it plays with the audience, while \"going for a kill\". The ending is awesome because a storyline (with a positive moral!) emerges: this is a frenetic, frantic and fun movie, which does deserve a wide audience. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0d3949ad2c04bdeb772e3bc243244d9", "input": "Review: ** possible spoilers **I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-818716ca474a4be8bce2a297482d583b", "input": "Review: I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-713363fab9b74760a802011300567b0c", "input": "Review: Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having \"killed\" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.You will remember this movie for many years.See it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1bdcddff8ab4955b07c946544dde50b", "input": "Review: Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Professor Noodle (Lucien Littlefield) is nearing the completion of his rejuvenation formula, with the ability to reverse ageing, after twenty years. Ollie and Stan are the chimney sweeps that arrive to do their job, and very quickly Ollie wants to get away from Stan making mistakes. Ollie goes to the roof to help with the other end of the brush at the top of the chimney, but Stan in the living room ends up pushing the him back in the attic. After breaking an extension, Stan gets a replacement, a loaded gun, from off the wall, and of course it fires the brush off. Stan goes up to have a look, and Ollie, standing on the attic door of the roof, falls into the greenhouse. Stan asks if he was hurt, and Ollie only answers with \"I have nothing to say.\" Ollie gets back on the roof, and he and Stan end up in a tug and pull squabble which ends up in Ollie falling down and destroying the chimney. Ollie, hatless, in the fireplace is hit on the head by many bricks coming down, and the butler Jessup (Sam Adams) is covered in chimney ash smoke, oh, and Ollie still has nothing to say to Stan. The boys decide to clean up the mess, and when Stan tears the carpet with the shovel, Ollie asks \"Can't you do anything right\", and Stan replies \"I have nothing to say\", getting the shovel bashed on his head. As Ollie holds a bag for Stan to shovel in the ashes, they get distracted by a painting on the wall, and the ashes end up down Ollie's trousers, so Stan gets another shovel bashed on the head. Professor Noodle finishes his formula, and does a final test on a duck, with a drop in a tank of water, changing it into a duckling. He also shows the boys his success, turning the duckling into an egg, and he next proposes to use a human subject, i.e. his butler. While he's gone, the boys decide to test the formula for themselves, but Ollie ends up being knocked by Stan into the water tank with all the formula. In the end, what was once Ollie comes out, an ape, and when Stan asks him to speak, all Ollie ape says is \"I have nothing to say\", and Stan whimpers. Filled with wonderful slapstick and all classic comedy you could want from a black and white film, it is an enjoyable film. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Very good! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0cfc0ea5943404d9356cb709719ec6d", "input": "Review: I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of \"1 Teenager In 10\", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c8b0896de0347a3b295b8d1c062e47b", "input": "Review: Much like the comedy duo of its title, \"The Sunshine Boys\" has become a forgotten classic 30-odd years later. It's hardly mentioned alongside other great film comedies of the 1970s. This makes no sense given the singular specialness of this film, perhaps the best Neil Simon ever wrote.Walter Matthau plays Willy Clark, once half of a legendary vaudeville comedy known as Lewis and Clark, now a bitter 73-year-old solo act who can't get a job in a potato chip commercial. His nephew and agent Ben (Richard Benjamin) is sure he can get work if Willy will only agree to reunite with his estranged partner Al Lewis (George Burns) for an ABC-TV celebration of show business nostalgia.Nostalgia is what \"Sunshine Boys\" has going for it in spades, right from the start when a series of 1920s film clips showcasing various entertainers from long ago flickers before us to the accompaniment of Cole Porter's \"Be A Clown\". Then there's the film's present-day setting in Manhattan, where flared trousers and wide polyester ties abound. The periods collide in Willy's glorious mess of a Manhattan apartment, where framed photos and cartoons of long-dead celebrities stare out from the walls at lurid tabloid headlines and empty Zabar grocery bags. If you were alive in the 1970s like me, you might even feel like you were in that apartment.Willy clearly has been living there too long. He's sleeping in front of the television when the kettle in the other room boils. Willy wakes up and picks up the phone.\"Hello, who is this?\" A pause. \"Never mind, it's the tea.\"Old men living alone can be sad material in almost anyone else's hands, but Simon's deft wit and unerring feeling for character turns this adaptation of his 1972 stage hit into comedy gold. The amazing thing about \"The Sunshine Boys\" is how much it rubs your noses in Willy's almost existential condition without turning you off at all. \"89 years old and just like that, he dies of nothing'\" Willy says of one old songwriting friend, before deciding the man probably died from writing a song that rhymed \"lady\" with \"baby\".Burns won an Oscar for his understated performance as the gentle but steely Lewis, but it's Matthau who brings this one home, his make-up and proud but ragged bearing really selling you on the idea he was already 73 when he made this. Willy is obnoxious in the extreme, fully deserving Ben's description \"crazy freakin' old man\", but you root for him throughout, enjoying his small victories even when they come at the cost of others' patience. His lines kill you, too, especially when he's trying to kill Lewis, for whom the TV reunion turns out to be a bad idea.\"You're out of touch!\" Willy tells Lewis at one point. \"I'm still in demand. I'm still hot!\"\"If this room was on fire you wouldn't be hot,\" Lewis replies.Director Herbert Ross shoots everything in a very casual and understated way, with low lighting and mid-range shots even in emotional moments so as to leave room for the comedy and the film's overall zen message of grace through quiet acceptance. You never get the feeling you are watching a movie, one of \"The Sunshine Boys\" many charms, and Ross's direction, like the acting of the three principals, goes a long way toward achieving that end.Comedy is hard, especially when the subjects are people watching life pass them by, but \"The Sunshine Boys\" makes it all seem a pleasure, because, for us watching, it is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e1a0263d47d4d409b5ba92dadf28c11", "input": "Review: This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6bcbae6450441db8833766f7f15e14b", "input": "Review: This is one a most famous movies of the French sexual empowerment of the seventies, starring Gerard Depardieu and Patrick Dewaere in extremely sarcastic roles. It is also one of the many dark psychological dramas of the seventies/eighties, such as \"Serie Noire\", \"Buffet Froid\", \"Beau Pere\", all realized by Blier.However, I would like to correct the previous comment that was posted on the movie: the translated title in English is very far from the French version. It is true that both protagonists are \"going places\", but the title in French could be literally translated by \"the waltz dancers\", which is a metaphor for the movement of the testicles... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-91aec3d37352427a8d092c507efbf814", "input": "Review: Sure, 65 years have passed since Thalberg's last production was filmed. But fellow IMDB members, come on, this movie is surely one of the masterpieces of the 30's! It is a 10.This was the first movie I saw at New York's Museum of Modern Art, around 1970 (I was a teenager). Expensive looking yet with scenes of such poverty, masterfully photographed, often thrilling, and always engaging, to me it was MGM movie-making at its best. What did audiences feel when they glimpsed a locust attack, the person by person destruction of a mansion, the horrific poverty and then the splendor of wealth.Last week, those watching the Academy Awards had a glimpse of the \"senior\" Oscar winner in attendance, Luise Rainer. How grand to see an actress who arguably delivered one of the most masterful, haunting performances in history electing to return for a celebration.Ok, so she should not have won the year before (Great Ziegfeld), but don't blame Luise. Talkies were only a decade old when this was released, and her dialogue limited. But as Olan, her use of visual and vocal is memorable.Large scale and touching, what more could a movie lover want! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b801c5c7e72f4cddb70f6376a9a0ee21", "input": "Review: Redline is a knockoff of Fast & Furious, without any of the redeeming qualities. It doesn't need to have a convoluted plot with multiple twists and surprises, but it needs SOMETHING! This is the equivalent of a porn film, where the storyline and dialogue consist of 60 seconds at the beginning and the same at the end. Except that this is worse, because you don't get your money's worth. Mind-numbingly boring, impossible race sequences, and a terrible waste of expensive beautiful cars, which almost acquire negative points for having appeared in this movie. Sure, she's hot, but who's that desperate for an on screen female? I feel like the director sat there with a hat full of dialogue and plot snippets, and shook an 8 ball every time they switched scenes. No serious person who races or knows anything about it would watch this movie and enjoy the race scenes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-877844fae35e4e9baca57920193d4f41", "input": "Review: There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0047fd9c61d4ffca8bf828cc5d08e11", "input": "Review: Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line \"Tori Spelling can't act\" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-df51426582044cbc862123d5ec41c8da", "input": "Review: Primal Species (1996, Dir. Jonathan Winfrey) International terrorists get a surprise when their cargo turn out to contain living dinosaurs. The army commando team now have to think fast, if they want to prevent the extinction of the human species, instead of the reptiles.You look at the cover and you gain your first impressions of the film. That is pretty much it. The acting is only just acceptable from a few characters. The story is poor, with the whole film based on the army and the marines trying to kill the dinosaurs. This film came out three years after 'Jurassic Park'. Instead, this film looks to have come out 13 years before 'Jurassic Park'. The dinosaurs costumes are so poorly made, and i do mean costumes. There are obviously people dressed up, and this film makes no attempts at hiding this. A scene when a dinosaur runs down a corridor is created in a way, in which it looks like someone is riding the creature. The is one good thing, which comes out of this film. The short running time. At only 1 hour and 15 minutes, it doesn't waste too much of your life, but still try to avoid it altogether.\"It's like a Friday the 13th Nightmare.\" - Officer (Brian Currie) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eeb3d8038f01444a9cb1239c8f7f4218", "input": "Review: That's right, you heard me this movie is a freaking' ABOMINATION. First off, the band, who the hell is going to go see or listen to a band called \"THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND\"?!?! Not only is the name terrible but so are the musicians, they can't even play anything! Also, the lead singer sounds more girly than Geddy Lee, and even more his voice is horrible! Not only are they terrible musicians but they're terrible actors. Led by a crappy director and thin plot, this has got to be the dumbest movie ever. I wish this website would let you use a vote of ZERO OR BELOW out of 10, because giving this filth a 1/10 is being WAY too generous.I'm not sure that you can call this a comedy film. If you're looking for comedy with music, go to that \"Weird Al\" Yankovic guy 'cause he does it a whole lot better than these untalented tweens. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82bf374cac3b4d70b9a57ab4adc848b9", "input": "Review: This weekend just passed I watched \"28 Weeks Later\" which was very good. After that I watched this film. I have tell you it is one of the most boring so called horror you could ever watch. The scenes were unrealistic, there was no script and no plot. The alien creature was unreal. And the fight scenes mild compared to a school yard fight. And to make it worse the guy named Cody had an uncontrollable loose filthy tongue which distracts attention from the main film.Forget about this movie; rather go and watch 28 Weeks Later.Cheers, Mesake C. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-982996af73e346d484e91da31446ea07", "input": "Review: If you want to watch a movie and feel good about watching it, then Tigerland is the film for you. I love this movie from top to bottom. This movie's picture-perfect scenes look so real; it's almost like a documentary of something that happened in real life but with drama. Boy, I tell you... REAL drama they actually real \"fought\" in one of the scenes (get the DVD listen to the commentary its not obvious). I see this film as a bunch of desperate young men trying to escape an ill-fated destiny, after watching Saving Private Ryan I have an a appreciation of what an \"ill-fated destiny\" is and know exactly how the men in the film feel. I see this movie as a crossbreed between \"Stand By Me\" and \"Saving Private Ryan.\" What do men do when they are with a situation that's \"hard pressed\" in real life? Some men go crazy, some men cry, some men through fists, others do drugs, some randomly sleep with hookers ruthlessly trying to eradicate the meaning of love from their life, some try drink the pain away, some jump off buildings or bridges, some feel guilty and others feel so much agony it makes them so sick they collapse - physically. This movie has all those desperate emotions rolled into one ball. But don't get me wrong its not depressing movie, its realistic, its a very very humorous movie, the cocky and funny Bozz (Collin's Character) lights it all up, and on top of that there are about 5 female actresses in the movie; I'll let you figure out what their in there for! With dialogue, war/action sequences, picture perfect scenes along with appropriate music; this movie has it all, like I said: from top to bottom. I don't why Tigerland is heavily under-credited. The best thing about owning the movie is that on the cover it says in big bold writing \"The best film of the year,\" and it absolutely falls nothing short of that. Keep the rare gems coming Hollywood, 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2382263c24da42bf9ec5bf9907579ac1", "input": "Review: I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-517f10bb7f9c4a9f987b5e2301018d5e", "input": "Review: Here's a real weirdo for you. It starts out with another take-off on the PSYCHO shower scene, on campus, then gets crazier when several coeds and their doofy boyfriends head south for Spring Break. The trouble starts when they drive into the redneck county ruled by homicidal Sheriff Dean. One of the college cuties wanders into the woods, witnesses a murder by the sheriff and has her head blown open. Then it's lets-rip-off MACON COUNTY LINE-time as Dean stalks, traps and slaughters the witless witnesses one by one. Tony March is on-target as the evil, shotgun-happy Dean. The movie's overall tone is truly disturbing. The ending is so abrupt you almost think the director ran out of film; it's also a study in despair. SHALLOW GRAVE is a must for misanthropes, misogynists and nihilists the world over. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f136fa4273344b8caf97c2fef165c113", "input": "Review: The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version. Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton. It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists. The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-204738f61c2f410d8b1333203a289579", "input": "Review: In Northeastern of Brazil, the father of the twelve years old illiterate Maria (Fernanda Carvalho) sells his daughter to the middle man of a prostitution organization, Tadeu (Chico Dias), to be employed as a housemaid and have a better life. However, the girl is resold to the farmer Lourenço (Otávio Augusto) that deflowers her, and he gives the abused girl to his teenager son to have his first sexual experience. Then she is sent to a brothel in a gold field in Amazonas and explored his owner, the despicable Saraiva (Antonio Calloni). When Maria escapes to Rio de Janeiro expecting a better life, she is explored by the cáften Vera (Darlene Glória).\"Anjos do Sol\" exposes the sad and shameful reality of child prostitution in Brazil through the fate of the girl Maria. Last year I saw \"Lilja 4-ever\" that tells an identical story in the former Soviet Union; therefore this problem does exist in Third World countries. Director and writer Rudi Lagemann presents a great movie exposing the reality but never showing nudity or explicit sexual scenes. It is the debut of the promising Fernanda Carvalho, who has an excellent performance in the role of a scared child fighting for survival. Most of the prostitutes are amateurs, and it is impossible to recognize the famous Darlene Glória so different she is after many plastic surgeries. The bitter and hopeless end of the story is also very realistic. My vote is ten.Title (Brazil): \"Anjos do Sol\" (\"Angels of the Sun\") Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-384ffa5db7634e11af2dfcb256a29987", "input": "Review: This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c54d9df57e4438f858ab6d5e585ef13", "input": "Review: I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is \"Movie Movie,\" with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of \"Kramer Vs. Kramer,\" in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, \"The Municipalians,\" which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of \"The New Centurians\" and some \"Dirty Harry\", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after \"Animal House\" to have the \"National Lampoon\" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget \"comedy\" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d46d441dbc84f6c9a220651554d436a", "input": "Review: While originally reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of watching \"Lost\", I accidentally caught one episode at the beginning of season 1—the one with the polar-bear—and it has had my undivided attention ever since. The show, that is. Not the polar bear. So bear (heh) with me while I throw out as much rambling, semi-coherent praise as I can muster.\"Lost\" takes a simple idea of a passenger flight full of people crashing onto a desert island, and gradually adds extraordinary depth to its premise by exploring each character deeply and unflinchingly—what drives them, who are they? Where did they come from? It soon becomes clear that the island upon which they are stranded acts as a common denominator for many things in their lives, whether they're running away from something (Sawyer and Kate among others) or getting in touch with spirituality (Locke, Claire). But \"Lost\" also zooms in on the island itself and the mysterious horrors that it houses... and they all seem to be strangely connected.While television actors are not exactly known for their subtlety or dazzling acting abilities, most of the cast of \"Lost\" are, in truth, spectacular actors for their respective parts, projecting heart and humour in their performances. There's also a multitude of eyecandy, but not generally of the plastic Hollywood kind as most TV shows. The characters all feel very real and they are extremely compelling to watch. Their interactions rarely fall prey to predictable sappiness, petty arguments or cheesy melodrama (although they are annoyingly secretive) – these people are first and foremost trying to survive and whatever relationship appears is treated secondary to action. The realism of these characters facilitate an already well-sculptured plot. About this plot... Imagine a tree as the template plot, then the branches as subplots (in this case, one branch for every character) – well, Lost adds twigs to each branch and then tiny twigs to those twigs as other story lines. If you're a brother/sister to one of the main characters in the flashbacks, you will get your own storyline. If you're a DOG you will have your own storyline. Unless the writers manage to weave them all together into some glorious culmination in the end, they are setting themselves up. I am more than a little worried there will be some disappointing cop-out to this show, as I'm sure most people are.But assuming the writers do pull this off, \"Lost\" is possibly the best show ever to hit television.9/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-827ad8a5e54e4fc689c5e9a4869fb493", "input": "Review: Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffd138added24e9598263668ac6ccc70", "input": "Review: Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the \"Wood\"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02da41fec0c74831b7d53e8705ff9bd5", "input": "Review: Over Her Dead Body was a nice little movie.It was decent and entertaining, while still being pretty funny.There were a few cliché's, but I found most stuff fresh.At first I didn't think it was going to be good at all,when it started out.If you can get past the first 20 minutes though,the movie starts getting more interesting.This film wasn't burst out in laughter hilarious,and wasn't OH MY GOSH wonderful.It was just a movie that you can sit down and enjoy for how enjoyable it was.I don't see how this movie was bad.It's rating is just a bit too low.I could've dealt with a 5.5,but a 4.8?Also,giving this movie a 1 is disgraceful.It was pretty good,and there was nothing horrible enough about it to give it a 1,which is what most people gave it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4fbd79ae7294ab7aab09f0ba40581f9", "input": "Review: WAR, INC. (2008) **1/2 John Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd, Sergej Trifunovic, Lyubomir Neikov, Ned Bellamy, (Voice of: Montel Williams)A hit-and-miss-21st Century \"STRANGELOVE\"John Cusack – who co-wrote the script with Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser – stars as a jaded hit-man named Brand Hauser who is burnt out but decides to follow thru on one final assignment by icing a Middle-Eastern oil minister named Omar Sharif (yes, not THAT Omar Sharif but you get the tone here from this misfire for a laugh) commandeered by the ex-Vice President of The USA (Aykroyd, Cusack's old \"Grosse Pointe Blank\" co-hort, doing a mean Dick Cheney manqué turn here), enlisting Brand to do the deed under the guise of a Trade Show Producer in mythical Turaqistan (read: Iraq/Afghanistan) for the American private corporation Tamerlane (read: Halliburton). While being briefed Brand is faced with a moment of clarity when he comes across intrepid journalist Natalie Hegalhuzen (Tomei) and eventually falls in love with her. Meanwhile Tamerlane is sponsoring the unlikely union of Eastern European teen sensation Yonica Babyyeah (a surprisingly decent Duff aping her own celebrity with tongue- through-cheek) and the idiot son of the country's leader.What follows is a bold attempt for a 21st Century black comedy a la \"DR. STRANGELOVE\" but for all intense and purposes there are sadly more misses than hits in this broad try for laughs amidst political message (an unjust war being outsourced by American capitalism, check!) While Cusack riffs on his Martin Blank from the aforementioned \"Pointe\" he does add some nice touches of his man in black (he does shots of Tabasco sauce to take the edge off), the rest of the cast plays catch up (except sister Joan who is a riot as the high-strung aide- de-camp for Hauser and has one of the film's funniest laugh-out lines: \"My mass communications skills are finally paying off\") for the most part. Cusack visited the Iraq War earlier this year in the 180 degree different \"Grace Is Gone\" and here he allows his political views wear on his sleeve ; while admirable overall the film's pace and rhythms are off largely no-thanks to first time filmmaker Joshua Seftel making his directorial debut here (and it is noticeable) except for maybe the well-choreographed fight Hauser is involved with Babyyeah's idiotic fiancé's entourage.A nice attempt yet a misguided failure ; maybe next time Cusack won't try so hard and let the idiocy of war speak for itself instead of doing the heavy lifting by himself. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48559ae7726b40af9ff26090c9cfd5d6", "input": "Review: This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e8bac7a83039400587f582c1d016b294", "input": "Review: Most Stoogephiles consider this to be the best Stooges short bar none, and they're right. Curly is a scream dressed up in drag as \"Senorita Cucaracha\", and Moe and Larry are in top form as \"Senor Mucho\" and \"Senor Gusto\", respectively. Christine McIntyre's beautiful operatic voice is given full rein--she actually was a trained opera singer--and it's wonderful. The great Gino Corrado is hilarious as a pompous Italian singer terrorized by the Stooges at a society party. Some truly funny gags, good direction and very tight editing make this rise to the very top of the Stooges' prolific output. What's even more amazing is that Curly was having severe health problems at the time, and in several of the shorts he made during this period, you can see that he is obviously ill; his timing is way off, he speaks very slowly and haltingly, and has trouble getting around. Fortunately, his health was in an upswing when he made this film, and it shows. Classic Stooge comedy, and enjoyed by even non-Stooge fans (I had a girlfriend who couldn't stand the Stooges, but even she laughed at this one). A must-see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-afa09f97d1604a57965c0838ab2fa19e", "input": "Review: When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of \"tension and release\" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea1993668f5641aa865379343294cbef", "input": "Review: Having not seen all the films released in 2002, I can't say that this is the best film of the year. I can say that it is the best film I have seen all year. Most American films featuring black people either obsess over the American preoccupation with \"race relations\", or fall into the cliches of the inner city ghetto, with every sterotype imaginable spouting ebonic-phrased slang. Antwone Fisher stands proudly alone in this regard: race is irrelevant, save for one fight that may, or may not, have been provoked by a racial slur.Antwone Fisher's story is one that should find resonance with any empathic individual. He is understatedly, and thoughtfully, portrayed by Derek Luke. Denzel Washington, while obviously using his star power to have the film made, sticks to the background for the most part, and allows the film to be the Antwone Fisher story. At a time when BET, and popular culture in general want to maintain the ghetoization of a large number of Americans (and Canadians too, you know), this is a film that speaks to the humanity in all of us. I just hope that the non-Black audience will go see this film for that humanity, rather than avoiding it because they feel that there are no characters or actors in the movie whom they can identify with. That would be a sad commentary on race-relations in North America in and of itself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-daf2e49c6a424ac7b70ec93377bce85a", "input": "Review: There is so much of worth in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin with praise. Let me begin by expressing my admiration for a perfect portrayal by Reese Witherspoon. That her performance stands out in the excellent cast is praise indeed. Robert Mulligan has seldom disappointed those of us who have admired his work. Every frame of The Man in the Moon is evidence of film making at its best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-700ec2db72db47daad1c2416699fc9fb", "input": "Review: I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a92f8e2af5c24dc0ab56f7b405d44e1d", "input": "Review: If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read \"The Elegant Universe\" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and \"The Universe in a Nutshell\" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.Recipe for #$*!:3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientistMix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.Serving suggestion: barf bags. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b741f3c349644f608709e888c5a47f45", "input": "Review: Let me set the scene. It is the school holidays and there is absolutely nothing at the movies. I am with my friend deciding what to see. We look for a movie that is starting soon and \"The Grinch\" comes up. We buy tickets not knowing what to expect. What we got was a roller coaster of fun.Jim Carrey (who may I add is my No.1 actor in the whole world) was absolutely magnificent as the Grinch in this Ron Howard's best movie (next to Apollo 13). The way that this movie was made, the scenery, the actors, the props and the music was just amazing. It really brought this childhood movie to life.The story is based upon the story of the grinch. As we all know the Grinch is a horrible person who just can't stand christmas. He lives high above whoville and has never mingled well with the townfolk. But one little girl is going to change The Grinch's look on life and on others in a drastic way.Cindy Lou Who (played by adorable new actress Taylor Momsem) meets the Grinch as finds the kind part of him straight away. She attempts to break the barrier and to help the Grinch move in and mingle with the towns people.All up this movie is a barrel of laughs for the whole family both kids and parents. A SOLID 10/10. Well done Jim. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9a128eaab464bb3b58e077d4c9c851a", "input": "Review: Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of \"Dodge City\", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6dbaa9f876947f7a4c43c430780bb59", "input": "Review: Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0625603c4b8e408d877b89e65717c6bc", "input": "Review: Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly \"flying bed\" scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.A great film that still holds up today!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75fb82b025d8444199a05f9e077dfbc4", "input": "Review: A gave it a \"2\" instead of a \"1\" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.The \"sepia\" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62d1744966cb464b99386acad7b8d9d5", "input": "Review: I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented \"Love Story\" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcbf31c4807c4970a9054aec68b8d804", "input": "Review: \"Father of the Pride \" was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in \"The Simple life \") I admit that are many similarities with this show and \"The Simpsons\" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like \"Mission Hill \" a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-297d1e6838664cc6bb42c23e4cdd4b27", "input": "Review: This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bcd9506753a448284fef4d6c30dd173", "input": "Review: This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc916d42857f4ecc8abbb2f1b2aeca0c", "input": "Review: This movie is simply not worth the time or money spent. Full of clichés and a plot that makes absolutely no sense ! I cant believe that so many people have given this awful movie a 10. My guess is they are stooges of the movie maker. If I could give this movie a zero, I would. Too bad IMDb doesn't allow that. The only reason I watched it because I went with a friend who really wanted to see it. Whats sad is that I never had great expectations from this movie to begin with and yet I felt short changed. Take my word, don't waste your $8 on this piece of trash. The only entertainment I got out of the movie was making fun of the directors name. In all, highly NOT RECOMMENDED ! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1948eaa59a904928ae409d2331e4c235", "input": "Review: This is one of my all time favorites. It is so simple and sweet - definitely a chick flick romantic comedy. I really like a film full of good quotes and this has it... one of my favorites is when Albert Einstein says to Ed Walters \"Are you thinking what I'm thinking\" and Ed says \"Now what are the odds of that happening!\" In my opinion, a film is fabulous if you can watch it again and again and get the same amount of enjoyment out of it, and with this one, you can!! I also really enjoyed Walter M.s way of portraying Einstein. I think all the characters fit together really well and the story flows nicely. There are so many times that I find myself smiling right along with the film and quoting my favorite lines as I watch it! I would recommend this movie to anyone who has a heart and enjoys a feel-good romantic comedy now and then! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-45d09be435bd485a9dff14f3184873f7", "input": "Review: \"Jake Speed\" is a fine movie with a wonderful message. It has its flaws of course. At times it's a little slow. It introduces its villain too far into the story. It's action is paced at the rate of a snail's heartbeat. It has a Z-grade cast (Although I've always admired the work of Karen Kopins, who has the straight-laced good looks of Sandra Bullock).But with all this going against it, \"Jake Speed\" really is inspiring, thanks to a charming script by Wayne Crawford(who plays the title role) and Andrew Lane.Why do I find it so inspiring? Because it says to me \"Hey, why not try to be a good person.\"The story is essentially a \"stranger in a strange land\" premise, that is good-and-heroic Jake Speed is placed in the real world where bad things happen to good people. Jake is more than a Boy Scout. He's more than a knight in shining armor. Jake Speed is the patron saint of optimism in a dirty, mean and evil world.It's because of this that \"Jake Speed\" really needed to be a hit. It has a great message that should have gotten out to Hollywood and then to the rest of the world.Imagine a movie industry that really pushed itself to portray good and decent people. I'm not saying that we should be watching the Waltons in every theater at the cineplex, but that it would be nice if more movies such as \"Jake Speed\" would get a chance. (\"Due South,\" a TV show about a Canadian Mountie, is a good comparison of what can be done to brighten up American entertainment.)Sure, \"Jake Speed\" has violence, blood and guns, but the overall message is that if you try hard enough to be a good person, you'll beat the forces of evil every time. 10/14/99 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3e1da6d29ef4167821fba34e411f2ff", "input": "Review: This is a very moving picture about 3 forty-something best friends in a small england town. One finds a passionate loves and a new beginning with a younger piano instructor, When tragedy strikes and hearts are changed forever. Definitely a film to have a box of tissues with you! A powerful piece of work. This is definitely one of my favorite films of all time.*SPOILER!!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER!!*The main character is taken by her young, handsome piano instructor and a passionate romance blossoms. Her two jealous \"friends\" play an immature prank which quickly leads to tragedy. She loses her love and her friends in one foul swoop. In the end a unexpected surprise pulls them back together.(in my opinion her forgiveness is not warranted) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a2b7a54115945a5b2d04855a69c6483", "input": "Review: The Gang of Roses. \"Every rose has its thorns.\"A mix of old western and hip hop, blended perfectly together. The clothing styles, the scenery, and the plot are all suited to what the director wanted. Plot - in five years, they robbed twenty-seven banks and then vanished without a trace. Now, a small western town is under siege, and one of the first victims is Rachel's sister. The Rose Gang is ready to ride again. And this time it's personal.Rachel (Michael Calhoun), Chastity (Lil' Kim), Maria (Lisaraye), Zang Li (Marie Matiko) and Kim (Stacey Dash), five gunslinging women who split up after five years of riding together. When Rachel's sister is killed, she ends up rounding up her friends once again and riding on a trail of vengeance. A good, muck around version of western. (If you've seen Bad Girls, well this is a little bit better in the ways of the female characters).I gave it 10/10 because the characters, plot and scenery made it for me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca04621ea226491aaeaba4c00d0fff3c", "input": "Review: This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-241705c62ae64632bc5d7b72915a2302", "input": "Review: Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa66576ec4464374a448f274ff9dacee", "input": "Review: Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7da1a83d95364c1c996667fbb3a9de19", "input": "Review: Has to be one of the worst wastes of 35mm movie film ever unleashed on the public, the sequel to the at least entertaining pseudo-documentary original film \"The Legend of Boggy Creek\". Bad script, worse acting, etc., etc., Dawn Wells had to be hoping that Gilligan would come rescue her and take her back to the island just to escape from this piece of clap-trap. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d41cd80ba9424f49b6ee3975f00673c4", "input": "Review: From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de4fb3b4abe345dfb958f37ef6e28264", "input": "Review: This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc71a02f42fd4281bb9942aceccbd6c6", "input": "Review: This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-141a479f62324755b5a1d5b553396bf2", "input": "Review: I think I've seen this sort of thing before: college graduates not realizing they have it pretty damn good, all the while, complaining that their lives suck.This movie is highly derivative of The Big Chill and Reality Bites from what I can make of it: they practically have the same plot.If anything good came out of this snore-fest, it was the music. That was it.As far as I'm concerned, I'm not impressed... but then again, I never expected anything less. This movie was directed by the same person that directed Batman and Robin; another movie that should only be viewed with a blindfold in tow.Now for the verdict: it's a 1 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a59020e554b4db1b214e9ff446e3929", "input": "Review: Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55618d2177094735ad07e2e8c649871f", "input": "Review: There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffbec7de01e3498ba0b2074e8953c1c2", "input": "Review: While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92000774dcb94768ac95c1c6ca56b0cf", "input": "Review: Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as \"Rosemary's Baby\" and \"Chinatown\". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. \"Le Locataire\", or \"The Tenant\", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other \"apartment-themed\" films (\"Repulsion & \"Rosemary's Baby\"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.While \"The Tenant\" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. \"Le Locataire\" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c730b71a0efb4ebab05e345184da5839", "input": "Review: Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And \"Maniac Cop\" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, \"What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death.\"1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. \"A black rainbow of death\" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.This is what you're in for. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ac05641a4cb4f4e97370a07eaff176b", "input": "Review: I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in \"power\" that annoy you.If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against \"the man\", this movie is juvenile and boring.You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.If... only I could get my two hours back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2886a8490f54026bf950dfc18128436", "input": "Review: For Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very disappointing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b18e85df58fb468dac04cf099ad24369", "input": "Review: Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the\"High Fat Diet\" and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary..... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a86e099813e1470bb828199b5818e051", "input": "Review: I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.Very disappointing. And really corny. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4bbf058333e4e46aef69b805fb6c7ef", "input": "Review: Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, \"SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!\" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then \"redeeming\" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly \"true\" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ff0922b68804000b2cdd15f4cab83e9", "input": "Review: `Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91a04a99f99542508c07e6d596a1de58", "input": "Review: It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long \"plot summary\" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d336c1ff5e1b4b12b5eb80e002c0afc1", "input": "Review: \"Carriers\" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of \"Star Trek\") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of \"Coyote Ugly\")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of \"Fanboys\") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of \"The Ring 2\") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of \"Runaway Bride\"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of \"Land of the Lost\") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.Indeed, \"Carriers\" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. No,\"Carriers\" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, \"Carriers\" sinks into predictability. \"Irréversible\" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, \"Carriers\" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f1f250fce474a9b99bb43dcea513997", "input": "Review: The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself \"If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes\" I might actually go for the red hot needles.Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind \"Yeah that's some bad direction right there\".I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: \"Some Sacrifices Must Be Made\". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a \"thriller\" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up…oh how I wish.Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one…yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you…and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour…and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58ef18f1e787426fb310904c4e7bc67f", "input": "Review: Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffa7c8892abc41cca9d895631f93d7f9", "input": "Review: This is like \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\" in a more surreal, fantasy setting with incredible special effects and computer generated imagery that would put Industrial Light and Magic to shame. The plot may be hard to follow, but that is the nature of translating Chinese folklore to the screen; certainly the overall story would probably be more familiar to its native audience. However, an intelligent person should be able to keep up; moreover, the martial arts scenes potency are amplified by eye popping CGI. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-779d2403f6b64d43b5748a45503a2c18", "input": "Review: I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...Then I watched it...I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the \"action\" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...At this point I wept...I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the \"action\" was even weaker, and the \"visuals\" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...And then on a whole new level is \"McBain\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2449c2856f6548a5b2b741d84c6e1617", "input": "Review: Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e2dd93716b54811810fbd5b60bc2737", "input": "Review: Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond… He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy…But there were vital differences… Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively… Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous… There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner…\"The Kennel Murder Case\" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947… The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery – exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling \"locked room murder,\" the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects… Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type… William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular \"The Thin Man\" at MGM… Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eebb981b3acc449ab2c2b05b8334168a", "input": "Review: I like my Ronald Colman dashing and debonair, the fellow you see in such films as If I Were King and Kismet. I like him as the epitome of civilization as in The Lost Horrizon and Random Harvest. A brooding Colman isn't a favorite of mine.But in A Double Life precisely because his part as actor Anthony John is so offbeat for him, Colman was recognized with a Best Actor Oscar for 1947. It became his best known part.Colman is an actor who really does take the Method quite seriously. He's just finished a successful run in a comedy of manners and he's quite the jovial fellow. For a change of pace now that that play has concluded its Broadway run, Colman is bringing a revival of Othello to New York. About as opposite a part as you can get.His leading lady in both is his former wife Signe Hasso who loves him dearly, but can't take his change of moods when he's at work. Colman loves her dearly as well and wants her back. But he's heading for a mental breakdown when he starts confusing himself with the jealous Moor Othello and Hasso with her role as Desdemona.Unfortunately Shelley Winters as a poor waitress who a depressed Colman picks up gets in the way of his madness and she winds up like poor Desdemona in the play. Killed in the same manner and now it's a matter for homicide cop Joe Sawyer.Colman's performance is so good that one does kind of wonder is this an occupational hazard with actors? I'd shudder to think so, were there any unsolved homicides in or around Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles then they essayed Othello. I could never quite buy the story for that reason, but I certainly do applaud Ronald Colman and what he did with the part. I'm sure there was a tinge of regret in him winning the Oscar though because one of the other nominees was his good friend William Powell for Life With Father. Others in the running that year were Gregory Peck for Gentlemen's Agreement, John Garfield for Body and Soul, and Michael Redgrave for Mourning Becomes Electra.Colman gets able support from the rest of the cast including Edmond O'Brien who finds himself in the unwanted part of Cassio in Colman's jealous fantasy. Still you will find no Iago equivalent in A Double Life, no one prodding the jealousy, it's all in his own mind.And that from one of the most cultivated and civilized minds of the last century. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-df52fd9e97724c9f960f983b339c6906", "input": "Review: The cast was good, and I thought it was a good performance from Christopher Lloyd, whom I like from previous movies. The movie was a great family movie, nothing that would make you worry to show it to younger kids, a good story line, lots of laughs, lighthearted and enjoyable. If you want to entertain children without being bored to tears this fits the bill. Kid pleasing, and not difficult for a parent to watch, either. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccae59902f7a414aab0e0cf335d821bd", "input": "Review: Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20c2c7411632407cae66154c3670e234", "input": "Review: The trailer for this movie didn't do the movie justice. And while the movie didn't know what it really wanted to get across, the first half of the movie being a light, romance comedy and the second have a more serious, romantic drama, the overall impact was much better than I thought it would be. This movie was more of a date movie, but the trailer made it into more of a suspense thriller which it never really turned out to be. Kidman, being one of my favorites, of course I'm biased, but this movie proved to be a light, sensitive, if somewhat quirky movie that deserved better. Three out of four stars. 9/5/02. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fb21350d98e4a399956d2be002d6573", "input": "Review: This is a reunion, a team, and a great episode of Justice. From hesitation to resolution, Clark has made a important leap from a troubled teenager who was afraid of a controlled destiny, to a Superman who, like Green Arrow, sets aside his emotions to his few loved ones, ready to save the whole planet. This is not just a thrilling story about teamwork, loyalty, and friendship; this is also about deciding what's more important in life, a lesson for Clark. I do not want the series to end, but I hope the ensuing episodes will strictly stick to what Justice shows without any \"rewind\" pushes and put a good end here of Smallville---and a wonderful beginning of Superman.In this episode, however, we should have seen more contrast between Lex and the Team. Nine stars should give it enough credit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef0471ada6d748f0b4069146458094e9", "input": "Review: I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2219301ab5534eb3906afb5b1a786edf", "input": "Review: Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name \"A. Flea\" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming \"T- Bone!\" He then sings, \"There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!\")That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea. The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-715a946640ab440da94ece13beabde42", "input": "Review: As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.Fooey.Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much. Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, \"Maybe I'm wrong.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2c395c802064ad28305922d4ca397a2", "input": "Review: This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-13f3ba4eb346407185ab882a0c9b8f1f", "input": "Review: This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw \"real\" feeling of the film that makes it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3770d2aeee041d69b1a908b9faa955f", "input": "Review: I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is \"Movie Movie,\" with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of \"Kramer Vs. Kramer,\" in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, \"The Municipalians,\" which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of \"The New Centurians\" and some \"Dirty Harry\", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after \"Animal House\" to have the \"National Lampoon\" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget \"comedy\" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4602609d3da4f3483e408c0327165f3", "input": "Review: \"I Am Curious: Yellow\" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) \"double-standard\" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-07d295c79fb3461c8ef88c35ef86d780", "input": "Review: I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.Buy it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-861a29a1a8914ec5853d0159e4fef4fb", "input": "Review: An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome. Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know? The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f8fd9e5060d4776b3e73c08c8255adf", "input": "Review: I went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.As a film it was painful, but seeing Bret Carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle.My favorite part of the movie was seeing BC slammed in the face with what appeared to be a \"C\" battery. The jury is still out on this. It was from a dildo and it was in slow-mo. Yep.\"Shoot the left side of the face only...people become famous by demanding things!\" - Bret Carr B. Carr donned a Chicken Suit for a bit of reverse psychology, roaming the streets of Clifton bashing his own film. He should. This is correct to bash the film.My soul felt chafed after this movie.Bret Carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.-Anonymous Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-951d1264c1a242d993da0f35c3df87dd", "input": "Review: I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.I would have voted \"1\" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-84d1462bbb9c4f7bb960841916ac2f99", "input": "Review: The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the \"Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!\" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-416e2eda2ba24c11a85de00e8f09b401", "input": "Review: There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c8135fcb46c450989e2b7f3864dfc73", "input": "Review: Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if \"Rambo\" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-974e900f13ec415190a694689daef7fb", "input": "Review: Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66f63c4b52334e40aa20fbc09b6f7c1f", "input": "Review: This film is a travesty, and isn't fit to keep company with the superior original. The plot is an absolute mess, and the film is way too long. Everytime they're struggling, they desperately inject a sentimental reminder from the first film.\"Gregory's Girl\" is one of the top 10 British films of all time, this one is awful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-60c6cde485584081a9ab75ef77f83684", "input": "Review: JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2a1d443ac224b2fa88f7d159b4e156e", "input": "Review: I saw the film twice in the space of one week, both times the at a cinema in Orpington, Kent, UK. The place was packed both times and people had to be turned away. From the start of the film with Henry Winkler getting 'injured' on the football field the whole audience was in uproar with laughter, laughter that lasted until the credits.For those who love American wrestling this film is a must, but be ready to see Henry Winkler as you have never seen him before. Also look out for a very well known actor whose trademark wrestling move is a head-but!If you get a chance watch this movie and it is family comedy entertainment at its best! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ed6e2fd11494c008ecf25549dfcf8a6", "input": "Review: Having seen the Peter O'Toole version recently, I was ready to be awed by the smart writing in this version. Little time is spent on the fighting, which I prefer. Instead, we are shown all the many motives underlying both the French and English (who held Normandy) politicos and priests who put her to death. Even the worst hypocrite of them all, the archbishop, leaves us with the thought that \"Of course, she was innocent. The innocent have always had to suffer for the ambitions of the mighty. She had no idea what she was saying, no idea of the implications of blasphemy or going against the church. Unschooled, she had no idea of what the church's stand on such matters even was.\"Preminger was true to the myths surrounding her death, and I appreciated the preview on the tape that showed the flames reaching up and burning her. Why? They used gas jets in the movie, and 2 of them were stopped up. Suddenly, the air pressure blew out the stoppage and the flames leaped up right on her. Thankfully for her, they didn't have to repeat the shot as it was SO realistic: she WAS being burned!! Pretty traumatic introduction for an Iowa girl to her new career of acting.John Gielgud performed outstandingly. He is the English politico who is orchestrating the show. He also makes the point that once you condemn someone to death, you don't want to be around to watch them die. You might shrink from your 'duty' the next time...not that such delicacies bother the soul of our would-be president. We Christians, even the most anti-Semitic have no problem with falling back on the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment, even though it was overridden by Jesus' words. Bring on public executions like this little girl's. Smelling burnt flesh might bring us respectable folks to our souls' senses.The only little 'pick' I have about this film is that we are not shown why the priest who has been so adamantly urging her burning becomes so suddenly so contrite, even to the point of madness. There should have been more expansion of his character, more dialogue--as the sudden 'coming to his senses' doesn't make sense.And, whether Graham Greene does this deliberately or not, St. Joan is such a self-assured little upstart, you almost but not quite, are glad she meets her come-uppance. And, when she turned down life in prison, for some reason I thought of Anne Sexton, the poet who accused Sylvia Plath of 'stealing her death' when she committed suicide ...knowing such an action guarantees immortality. You gotta wonder!!If ever there was a good example of obsessive thought and logic-tight compartments, this is one. St. Joan should have turned Buddhist and quieted the 'voices in her mind'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6944648a84e04397abe1559149d51654", "input": "Review: A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie \"Clockwatchers\" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb9127e10e554a4385f65f3332d7c0e4", "input": "Review: I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d582618f9fe64699890a9059d548d905", "input": "Review: If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fbfd6cd0c544a519bfd9c174448812e", "input": "Review: Best show since Seinfeld. She's really really funny. Her total self centeredness, the hulking gay stoner neighbors, the departures into song or cartoons, make this the freshest show on TV. One of the few shows I make point of watching. The scene with the wise old black lady in the drugstore (\"oh wait now that you're close you do look old\" turns face with finger and walks away lol), the cough syrup overdose, sleeping with God, it's all so funny or so stupid it's just a lot of fun. The shows weak points are her sister and the cop-only because they're too darn normal!! I really can't wait until the next show, something I haven't felt for any show in a long time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b59b05a5a8224a6abd4aad41610d41b3", "input": "Review: When teenagers go on a trip in a camper van there are many clichés that you can guarantee will follow.1)The teenagers will be warned not to go where they are going by a crazy local. Dan Van Husen handles that with ridiculous exposition about deadly Sirens. What, who, how and why are handled in one almost unintelligible burst. 2)The van will break down. 3)Whilst looking for help the group will be split up and be picked off one by one by whatever monster they have been warned about.4)They will find a house inhabited by a madman, he will capture them. 5) The house will have a phone but it will not work, it will be disturbingly decorated, there will be flickering neon light, spiders and maggots. 6)The madman will catch them as they try to escape in a vehicle that won't start (here the high speed getaway was to be made on a tractor). 7)The madman will be seemingly killed only to come back from the dead for a cheap, weak scare and will then be killed properly. 8)Only a girl will be left alive from the group. 9)There will be an unnecessary twist at the end. Add to these elements naked Sirens (who the characters seem to react to in startling different ways despite the fact that everyone that sees them is supposed to fall into lust with them immediately) that seduce and kill the teens, throats being ripped out and bodies being pulled in half and you have something resembling a twelve year old boys dream movie.I think it is only fair to say that my opinion of the director and his previous work is as low as it is possible to be but I am happy to point out that there are a few elements that boarder on pleasurable and are a great improvement on his previous film, Darkhunters, which is one of the worst films I have ever seen. At times the cinematography is very good, the music and editing are a cut above his previous films and some other low budget horror movies. I was impressed to hear that it was achieved with a third of the money spent on the previous monstrosity. However, the worst things about this movie are not to be found in the body of the film, it is ultimately a mildly diverting if pointless movie that has been done time and time again, but amongst the DVD extras.If you do rent this film I implore you to listen to the director's commentary it is beyond belief. There is more to say about this than the film itself. One staggering part of the commentary is the director's claim that the film is cliché leaden because it was a preconceived idea. He says it is a deliberate attempt to use all of the clichés and openly he wonders if \"people will get it\". I'm afraid to say that if this is supposed to be a clever nod and a wink to films of the past and the genre clichés within them then it is not wittily scripted enough, acted in an appropriate tone nor directed with enough style to work. If this film was made to order it leads me to ask one question; \"What was the point?\" This is s afilm that just slips right into the canon of bad horror movies, any attempt to do something clever or different haven't worked.The next nugget of brilliance is a conversation about the snobbery towards digital film formats. They rightly point out that digital is often synonymous with cheapness and ease of use. However, the best moment of the conversation comes when they bemoan the fact that when Michael Mann makes a film in the format he is branded as a visionary. There is a simple distinction to be made here; Mann is a talented director who will use the format to fit his story and style, Roberts is a horror hack who uses it to produce bottom shelf genre pictures . I think the differences are obvious and the comparison is not only arrogant but redundant.The best moment is reserved for Robert's comments about people who have taken the time to review his previous film. Those who didn't like it are generalised as 'geeks' and he even goes as far as to single out specific people for having the nerve to voice their opinion in forums that encourage them to do just that. I must admit I was slightly disappointed that my review of his last film wasn't singled out for ridicule. The tirade goes further as the group joke about Norwegian reviewers, complete with 'hilarious' accents to imply that people from Norway wouldn't know a good film simply because of where they are born. As always these sorts of comments say more about those saying them than those they are targeting, they simply make the director and his friends look ignorant.The package in rounded out with a tasteful featurette about how the Sirens were cast. Robert's swears blind in voice over, 'I didn't want to make a film that was like Baywatch' as we see audition tapes of topless and naked girls writhing around on the ground. There is also a simpering, self-indulgent documentary about the making of Darkhunters during which Robert's says that a reviewer has claimed that Forest is \"The best British film in years\". I don't know who he is trying to convince. At one point in the commentary track Robert's says jokingly \"I can see people sitting at home saying \"this isn't amazing, its sh$t\" he isn't wrong. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-72aa469e559049899d1e019bbdb5d6bd", "input": "Review: Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis. Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55415a16ef9d4291be069571cd1fe373", "input": "Review: As a low budget enterprise in which the filmmakers themselves are manufacturing and distributing the DVDs themselves, we perhaps shouldn't expect too much from Broken in disc form. And yet what's most remarkable about this whole achievement is the fact that this release comes with enough extras to shame a James Cameron DVD and a decidedly fine presentation.With regards to the latter, the only major flaw is that Broken comes with a non-anamorphic transfer. Otherwise we get the film in its original 1.85:1 ratio, demonstrating no technical flaws and looking pretty much as should be expected. Indeed, given Ferrari's hands on approach in putting this disc together you can pretty much guarantee such a fact.The same is also true of the soundtrack. Here we are offered both DD2.0 and DD5.1 mixes and whilst I'm uncertain as to which should be deemed the \"original\", the fact that Ferrari had an involvement in both means neither should be considered as inferior. Indeed, though the DD5.1 may offer a more atmosphere viewing experience owing to the manner in which it utilizes the score, both are equally fine and free of technical flaws.As for extras the disc is positively overwhelmed by them. Take a look at the sidebar on the right of the screen and you'll notice numerous commentaries, loads of featurettes and various galleries. Indeed, given the manner in which everything has been broken down into minute chunks rather than compiled into a lengthy documentary, there really is little to discuss. The 'Anatomy of a Stunt' featurette, for example, is exactly what it claims to be, and the same goes for the rest of pieces. As such we get coverage on pretty much ever aspect of Broken's pre-production, production and post-production. And whilst it may have been preferable to find them in a more easily digestible overall 'making of', in this manner we do get easy access to whatever special feature we may wish to view.Of the various pieces, then, it is perhaps only the commentaries which need any kind of discussion. Then again, there's also a predictable air to each of the chat tracks. The one involving the actors is overly jokey and doesn't take the film too seriously. Ferrari's pieces are incredibly enthusiastic about the whole thing. And the technical ones are, well, extremely technical. Of course, we also get some crossover with what's been covered elsewhere on the discs, but at only 19 minutes none of these pieces outstay their welcome. Indeed, all in all, a fine extras package. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4dbd4658a8e247c580e070f638fdc27e", "input": "Review: This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3747904b29c744378c90b7e5fe889315", "input": "Review: The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2de156721e943ff9798b92ed6bfd643", "input": "Review: Acclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a447640da82549bdbd25da0101c1ea13", "input": "Review: It has been said that Deanna Durbin invented teenagery. This first film was one of the best. The humorous story presented a delightful 14 year old Deanna, a little beauty with a gorgeous voice, as the \"Miss Fixit\" in a family split by divorce. For plot summary, see other IMDb entries, but quickly Deanna and her two older sisters plan to go to America from Switzerland to prevent their father from remarrying. With an excellent supporting cast especially Barbara Read and Nan Grey as the sisters, good direction and editing, the film succeeds in captivating one even on subsequent viewings. Of Deanna's three songs, only \"Il Bacio\" is from the classical repertoire, but when she sings it in that police station scene, the film's place in history is assured. At least it was for this viewer who at the age of 15 was smitten for life with both Deanna and classical music. One of the many nice touches that occur throughout THREE SMART GIRLS is the brief glimpse of the drunk stretching his neck for a final glimpse of Deanna as the cops hustle him by! One unfortunate result of the success of this film was that subsequent writers for Durbin vehicles became locked into the \"Miss Fixit\" theme, which quickly became stale. Deanna herself never did. Her stature as an actress is more questionable than her charisma, which she certainly had. It seems to me that, like many another film personality, she substituted \"naturalness\" for the histrionic ability that she lacked. The ploy worked well for 21 feature films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be535905251d4b0ea219af6e3e0a5d11", "input": "Review: John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-056ca1a496f24b0d957e9fb1445f4122", "input": "Review: Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a65d4bdacd145eaa8b7627e765b49a6", "input": "Review: Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75708d280bc843d4980e19e187539c75", "input": "Review: I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: \"Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings\". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.You catch my thrift? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed088a14442146bfbe459ed01cc02e15", "input": "Review: In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece \"Dirty Harry\", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, \"Magnum Force\", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, \"The Enforcer\" was grittier again, and was promoted as \"the dirtiest Harry of them all\". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own \"Sudden Impact\", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... \"Sudden Impact\" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the \"Man With No Name\" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. \"Sudden Impact\" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western \"Hang 'Em High\" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's \"Full Metal Jacket\") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous \"Do You Feel Lucky?\" scene in \"Dirty Harry\" and the black militant leader in \"The Enforcer\" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall \"Sudden Impact\" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all \"Dirty Harry\" films, (though \"The Dead Pool\" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbe7d3316495401a8c6603a4461d271e", "input": "Review: There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d766da081f654624ac90afd037b99ccf", "input": "Review: Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-661f930e0e01464cb860e85d057df988", "input": "Review: The sitcom \"The league of Gentlemen\" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village \"Royston Vasey\". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a \"local\" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about \"her\" sexual conversion.Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the \"real\" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: \"Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave.\"Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b75127bddd445a5a22e5257c59e4877", "input": "Review: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8OZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, \"The Projected Man\", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.Ooops, sorry. Yes, \"The Projected Man\". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, \"The Projected Man\" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for \"The Projected Man\":ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa4859cf907243bcacdb41b0557e80ce", "input": "Review: Many of the American people would say...What??? to my opening comment. Yes I know that my comparison is without doubts an insult for the fans of the Master Akira Kurosawa, but if you analyze this movie, my comment is right. We have the peasant who goes to the town searching for help against a band of grasshoppers who wants to steal the harvest of the village. The great difference is the way that the story takes. Our samurais, a band of circus performers as in the original are a very complex mixture of personalities but at the end are what the village needs, HEROES. Please watch again this incredible movie (the Seven Samurai, obviously) and find another movies who has stolen the story and tried to get the same magic effect than the Masterpiece of Akira Kurosawa. A tip is The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas, Michael Crichton copied the story to wrote his Best seller's, but he didn't found the third foot of the cat. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f11a3cb40be44cd8b8d3b10397f29088", "input": "Review: It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an \"esperanto\" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9baf28c81da343bab13609b1dbcdb61b", "input": "Review: To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the \"big waves\" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea6ded0bb668499c96c23ab684272913", "input": "Review: Cute film about three lively sisters from Switzerland (often seen running about in matching outfits) who want to get their parents back together (seems mom is still carrying the torch for dad) - so they sail off to New York to stop the dad from marrying a blonde gold-digger he calls \"Precious\". Dad hasn't seen his daughters in ten years, they (oddly enough) don't seem to mind and think he's wonderful, and meanwhile Precious seems to lead a life mainly run by her overbearing mother (Alice Brady), a woman who just wants to see to it her daughter marries a rich man. The sisters get the idea of pushing Precious into the path of a drunken Hungarian count, tricking the two gold-digging women into thinking he is one of the richest men in Europe. But a case of mistaken identity makes the girls think the count is good-looking Ray Milland, who goes along with the scheme 'cause he has a crush on sister Kay.This film is enjoyable, light fare. Barbara Read as Kay comes across as sweet and pretty, Ray Milland looks oh so young and handsome here (though, unfortunately, is given little to do), Alice Brady is quite good as the scheming mother - but it is Deanna Durbin, a real charmer and cute as a button playing youngest sister Penny, who pretty much steals the show. With absolutely beautiful vocals, she sings several songs throughout the film, though I actually would have liked to have seen them feature her even more in this. The plot in this film is a bit silly, but nevertheless, I found the film to be entertaining and fun. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a23854ce1ca745949e8b1f665acb9e35", "input": "Review: When a movie shocks you with it's disturbing, brooding atmosphere, and grabs you by the throat with it's stunning cinematography, you just know that you have stumbled upon a treat, masterpiece of a film. Although with most modern movies, extremely enjoyable as some are, those that really shock you into focus are the strongest, and are the ones that are most critically acclaimed and mostly, stick with you for a life time. I say, proudly, that I am a fan of movies that disturb, not just horror movies, but those that send a vibe laden with foreboding. Movies like Breakdown and The Missing, that send a chill down your spine, making you think \"holy crap, that could happen to me\", and visually entice you, are up there with some of my favorite aspects in a movie. Because I am only 21, I did not grow up with actors like Burt Renyolds, Jon Voight and Ned Beatty, albeit I am familiar with them, I didn't watch them grow and proceed as actors, as opposed to actors now like Shia LaBouf and Justin Long. I must say, after the long hype and witnessing Deliverance for the first time, I was so admired by these veteran actors in a movie made more than 30 years ago, and still lives it's terror up in competition to modern movies. Burt Renyolds plays Lewis, the macho self appointed leader of a group of four friends on a canoe trip down a fictitious river before a dam is made, filling the whole wilderness in water. Renyolds' character is an experienced adventurer, sort of no nonsense, and filled with machismo. Witnessing him portray the tough guy, made me think differently about him as an actor, as i have only seen him as a seedy old guy or an angry politician. The dialog the director provides for his character gives him enough malice to be proved as a strong and even intimidating leader. Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty play as the novice adventurers, Drew and Bob respectively, joining in for the fun of a canoe trip. The actor that i thoroughly enjoyed watching was Jon Voight, once again I have only seen him as an older actor, however, unlike Renyolds, I have quite liked Voight's acting (and i don't regard Anaconda when I say that), for example the national treasure movies. Voight plays Ed, whom, like Lewis, is experienced in adventuring but is seen as a more reserved character, a reluctant hero/ leader and definitely lacks Lewis' machismo. The film basically opens up with the four driving into a small town while asking to find someone to drive their cars to the bottom of the river whilst they canoe the rapids and camp along the riverside. You immediately get a creepy vibe from the hillbilly characters we are introduced to, like the imbred kid who plays the infamous \"Duelling Banjo's\" at the start of the film with Ronny Cox's character Drew; and more so the two mountain men in the films pivotal and disturbing rape scene. As with all atmospheric movies, from this moment on, dread and confusion fills the characters as well as the audience and it is here we see the characters take shape and change form. The canoe trip that follows is expertly shot and it is from here the men fight against both human and nature's odds for survival. The film's cinematics do not let up, and I back that comment up with the scene in which Ed fights one of the rapist mountain men with a composite bow. As Ed falls on to one of his arrows and notices his enemy approaching him, cocks his rifle, only to shoot the floor as he falls with an arrow in his neck; was possible the greatest piece of cinematic shooting I have seen in a film. In wrapping up, Deliverance is one film, who's dread and atmosphere carry the mood across and to this date, remains one of the best films in cinematic history. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-40d5440f69d84cde92b426f4bebaab64", "input": "Review: Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, \"Seven Pounds\" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-780e231e266d479abe0e81e2c1761eee", "input": "Review: My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0715fa2a1374461bebffde0a3d571b8", "input": "Review: This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4822c151f55a46c88e1810621eb46b74", "input": "Review: I recently rented this doc, having remembered hearing about it from IMDb.com and being intrigued by the premise. I knew very little about either of these bands, but I do remember hearing \"Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth\" by The Dandy Warhols ages ago and enjoying it. That being said, this is my perspective on the doc:One thing I found incredible about this film is there is no need to have any prior knowledge of either of these bands. The director (Ondi Timoner) wastes no time in engaging the audience and familiarizing them with the people in this film. I quickly became grooved to the lives both Anton and Courtney as well as their respective bands, The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. I think that is part of what makes this doc so good, and what makes Ondi Timoner such a master documentarian.I also loved how the \"story\" of these bands was told. Most of what you see is of the bands on tour. Both bands start out playing small venues and struggling to make it in the recording industry. Throughout the film, each band strives to remain unique and uncontrolled by the norm. However it is this that makes the two bands similar, and thus the brilliant perspective on how two bands of a feather can go in such different directions.I would basically recommend this for ANYONE who likes film in general. You do not need to have a particular love for documentaries, or either of the bands. An appreciation for music helps, but the music itself takes a backseat to the love/hate relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-705fdccad10e43778072cbeb35fd6b75", "input": "Review: If this movie were more about Piper Perabo's character and less about the bar, this might have been halfway decent. Piper's Violet Stanford and Karen Friendly (Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) both have a virgin kindegarden teacher quality to them that's endearing. Here's hoping she'll find a better movie to be in. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-059fa9a1b8274347bf4d7fbfa29d8a7d", "input": "Review: An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.The first half of \"Footlight Parade\" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in \"The Big Trail.\" Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be. In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, \"Honeymoon Hotel,\" \"By a Waterfall,\" and \"Shanghai Lil.\"Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill \"Bojangles\" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.Most critics prefer the \"Shanghai Lil\" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of \"By a Waterfall\" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color. Though not nearly as socially conscious as \"Gold Diggers of 1933,\" \"Footlight Parade\" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-778bbe86bdcc4f95998cf108ab3f5afb", "input": "Review: I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or \"Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...\". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e33f9f10391e4a95974430398ca9cace", "input": "Review: Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-afce3b7dc4694805bfd8df011c551908", "input": "Review: I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e60c2d5bb58940e7a6074c66b64cd43a", "input": "Review: A disappointing film.The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?Technically, a disgusting shot film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d097b62194d4df8b3305c9ea70fd0b3", "input": "Review: Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-31fbebddc48e4e80957e5e475cd69af1", "input": "Review: This is just a joke of a movie,they lost me already at the opening scene (Spoilerwarning) dangerous creature kills other creature in his cage,this is watched by a scientist that works there on a monitor and guess what she does,well lets go in to the cage to check the stuff out,omg how dumb do those writers think human beings are come on thats the same like jumping in a fish tank with a great white shark because it ate your goldfish...Pretty useless and even more dumber.And i will not even talk about the cast because they aren't worth the effort. why they didn't fired the guy that wrote that immediately is a mystery to me.....And this kinda dumbness continues the entire movie. Only good thing where the cgi that is better then average for these kinda low-budget movies.If these kinda things don't bother you go see it,but be warned if your IQ is above 60 you will probably hate it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6e8205a4cc947a3a5485aeece72999b", "input": "Review: Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever \"zombie\" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying \"This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW\" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b64589996ffc473a962c98b6c003a99c", "input": "Review: STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Mike Atherton (Dudikoff) is peacefully making his way in the Wild West when he spots a group of men mistreating a lady. Being a gentleman, he naturally steps in and puts a stop to this and in doing so kills the son of a nasty enforcer. This is just the beginning of a all guns blazing battle to the finish from which there will be only one winner.M Dudikoff is an action star who's never truly managed to take off with me. Maybe I discovered him too late and after the other film I saw with him in it last Monday, The Human Shield, it was just another Dud (ha ha) added to the list. But I have a thing for westerns, being films that just sort of transport me to a different time and place and provide real escapist entertainment and with this Dudikoff has picked one of his better scripts, as his films go anyway.The film hits a few low points in the shape of a naff central villain, sounding like a blank Marlon Brando and some generally ropey acting from some of the cast, along with the obligatory cheap looking sets. But if, for some strange reason, your life ever depended on watching a Dudikoff film, this would be one of your best choices. *** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0b97563fdd94a3096e74827c9efdffe", "input": "Review: This unpretentious Horror film is probably destined to become a cult classic. Much much better than 90% of the Scream rip-offs out there! I even hope they come up with a sequel! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a9369726fa884cfc8f6b81006bc1bdf4", "input": "Review: THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f64866af5bd433f992dcb11f062ba28", "input": "Review: Bertrand Blier is indeed l'enfant terrible of French cinema and in the seventies he always could shock the public. Filmed with his fave duo (Depardieu and Dewaere) and the usual dose of sex (Miou-Miou plays her typical role, at least the one from the seventies as little could we know that a decade later she would be the best French actress ever). In first \"Les Valseuses\" is also one of the first roadmovies as the viewer is just taken to some journeys of two little criminals. Those who only are satisfied with family life, or simply know nothing more, the movie would be quite a shocker but this movie is more than just that, it just let you think of all the usual things in life (working for the car, being bounded at work etc.). It's a sort of critic towards the hypocrite society we're living in. Great job and it just makes you wish two things : Dewaere died just too young as he was a topactor and of course Depardieu, he'd better should have stuck with French movies as he proves here that no one can beat him. Timeless classic and 20 years later it will still shock some... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f9682b8f13742a1a1ba42dbdc692928", "input": "Review: Warner Bros. made many potboilers in the 1930s and most of them are fast paced, economical and very entertaining. I really love how the studio exploited the less glamorous elements of our daily life. This is one of Warner's few hard-edged melodramas that simply doesn't work. Edward G. Robinson plays a ruthless editor of newspaper who resurrects the 20-year old story of a murderess with tragic consequences. Robinson gives a lively performance but he is surrounded by actors that don't cut the mustard. H.B. Warner, Aline MacMahon and Boris Karloff are good, but the bad acting of Frances Starr and Anthony Bushell in the second leads really hurts the movie. Starr is particularly bad during her big dramatic scene near the end of the movie. In addition, the moralistic tone of the film seems ridiculous in the context of pre-code Hollywood. LeRoy's direction is full of innovative visual touches but he cannot overcome the bad acting and the unintentionally funny situations. Sol Polito's camera work is strong. Somehow, this piece of dreck got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (in a year that gave us \"M,\" \"Dracula\" and \"Frankenstein\"). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf8cfff8e9de49e0be3bc7790a2c2942", "input": "Review: Michael Curtiz directed this 1930 very-stylish whodunit from a script by Robert Presnell Sr., Robert N. Lee and Peter Mine. The original novel they adapted was \"The Kennel Murder Case\", perhaps from a writer's standpoint the best of the Philo Vance mysteries by the strange S.S. Van Dine. Vance was a long-worded and superior detective genius, and his character being assigned to William Powell probably meant the executives at Warner Brothers were aware of the possibility that in less-engaging hands this detective might alienate viewers. Fortunately they assigned suave William Powell first to the character.; later he was played by Basil Rathbone, Warren William, and Paul Lukas before being consigned to \"B\" picture status.The other question as always with Warner Brothers executives is why they chose Vance as a character; their penchant was to choose men who operated outside the law, with no apparent discrimination between a vicious murderer and a champion of individual rights against all comers. This film has a despicable villain who gets murdered, and a claustrophobically challenging locale inside an apartment complex. The characters are unarguably unusually well-realized, the direction rather good and unusually swift-paced; and except for a darkish B/W look, the film avoids the comedic asides, superfluous characters and irrelevant dialogue characteristic of many early detective entries. Jack Okey did the good art direction. The music by Berhard Kaun is serviceable; Orry-Kelly did the costumes. William Reese provided the mostly-indoor cinematography. In the interesting cast, Powell is THE Philo Vance of his time, mostly sober-minded with just a hint of sardonic humor here and there. Eugene Palette is better than usual playing very straight as an admiring police partner to Vance, with his very professional timing. The other actor who comes off best is handsome Paul Cavangh, very effective as always in what was written as a red herring part. Mary Astor is attractive but at this point in her career she talked a bit too fast to be as effective as she later proved. Also in the cast were Helen Vinson as the villain's woman, Jack La Rue, Ralph Morgan (best known as Frank Morgan's brother), Robert Barrat as the villain everyone has cause to kill, Archer Coe, and Frank Conroy as his likable brother with Robert McWade as the D.A.; quirky and funny Etiienne Girardot has a delightfully witty part as the funny little forensics doctor who comes onto the crime scene. James lee as the abused Chinese servant is excellent and intelligent. The story breaks into four parts. First there is shad doings at a dog show, where Vance, Coe and Cavanagh are all showing West Highland terriers. Cavanagh's dog is killed, by Coe, to prevent him winning the title over his own entry. The second portion of the scene involves a leave-taking; someone is confused enough by who has gone where, after Coe parts from his girl friend, Vinson, to murder his nice brother by mistake. Enter Vance, to find out who did in Archer Coe in a locked room and how, with the help of Palette; the romantic difficulties are straightened out, the Chinese servant is exonerated, we find out who broke the expensive vase, who will marry whom, how Archer Coe was done in and why the butler did not do it--but someone else with a good excuse did. This is a more-than-good little mystery, which skilled Hungarian-born director Curtiz took quite seriously. He used wipes, swift cuts, changes of camera angle and alternations between straightforward and daring camera-work to achieve variety, interest and a sustained pace. Many writers, critics and experts, myself included, consider this to be the best of the Vance projects, although others are estimable as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b131f8845b944df8b8f821322e853b65", "input": "Review: We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38e798ecffc94b378ae11a524400bf66", "input": "Review: Walt Disney & his 9 Old Men put their own 1950 spin on the classic fairy tale of Cinderella, which I guess you could say helps form an unofficial \"fairy tale princess trilogy\" from the classic Disney years.THE PLOT: Cinderella is a nice girl who can't catch a break. She is the daughter of a nice, wealthy widower who loved her dearly, but her mother passed away when Cinderella was very young, and Cindy's father felt she needed a mother figure, so he eventually married the woman who would become known as Lady Tremaine, herself a widow with two daughters about the same age as Cinderella, Anastasia and Drizella. At first they all seemed to get along, but then Cinderella's father died, and Lady Tremaine's true nature was revealed - she was a cold, cruel, callous, heartless, mean spirited woman, and she passed those traits on to her daughters, who were spoiled, bratty, and equally mean spirited. Anastasia & Drizella hate Cinderella because they know deep down that she's better looking and an overall nicer, more attractive lady than themselves (i.e., more appealing to men), and their mother, Lady Tremaine, hates Cindy for pretty much the same reasons. As the years passed Lady Tremaine began to squander the family fortunes in a stubborn but futile quest to improve/refine her awkward, unattractive daughters (to call them \"homely\" would be an insult to homely people everywhere) while all three relegated Cinderella to being the multi-tasking servant of the house, abusing her, mistreating her and humiliating her every chance they get (they are particularly fond of increasing her already absurd workload). That brings us to Cinderella in the present, where she has blossomed into a good looking young lady who somehow manages to remain kind hearted and nice despite her abusive step family and holds on to the hope that one day the tables will turn in her favor. Cinderella gets her shot at freedom & happiness when a royal ball is held to introduce the local prince to an eligible young maiden so that he can take her as a wife, settle down, start a family, etc. Naturally, her step family tries to keep her from attending, even going so far as to physically assault her and rip up the dress she had procured for herself (with a little help from her mice friends - the dress belonged to her biological mother). Finally pushed beyond her breaking point, Cinderella runs out into the courtyard and cries in despair. It is at that point that her Fairy Godmother, a short, plump, jolly woman, arrives and provides Cinderella with transportation and a transformed dress (after all, Cinderella wouldn't make a very good impression at the ball if she entered the scene looking like she had just gotten gang raped). Cindy arrives at the ball, the Prince falls hard for her, but that pesky midnight rule gets in the way, forcing her to flee, but leaving behind a glass slipper. Make a long story short - after a long harrowing quest to find the mystery girl via trying on the glass slipper, Cinderella is found and she and the prince get married, giving her the happy ending she deserves.Overall, an enjoyable Disney classic. Not without its flaws, the most glaring of which is that the Prince is little more than a MacGuffin to help push the plot along - he has very little screen time and even less dialogue, so we never get to know him very well or get a good look at his relationship with Cinderella (which is unfortunate since, according to the making of documentary, the Prince was originally meant to play a bigger role), and a few additional scenes to help flesh out Cinderella herself might have been helpful (there was a song that showed her fantasizing of turning into an army of maids to clean up the house as well as eavesdropping on her step-family post ball to show her amusement at their jealousy, which was cut because Walt himself thought it made her look spiteful). Still, Cinderella herself is a likable enough heroine, even if she is upstaged by her mice friends, and there's a sweetness to the film that is becoming harder to find these days. Of course, if this were being made now, Cinderella would probably put up more of a struggle against her family during the dress ripping scene and would probably free herself in the climax (either by picking the lock herself or making an impractical yet exciting jump down from her window) but this is beside the point.And for all those who say Cinderella sets a bad example for young girls, well, consider this - at least Cinderella didn't go around getting publicly drunk and indecently exposed, unlike some modern day \"princesses\" (you know who I mean). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1101d55d916a4b2eb1f9023916c36126", "input": "Review: First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-705cff429ff64ac88948502792169443", "input": "Review: A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.\"\"DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! (\"I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery\"). Truly beyond belief. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62422a62d65b4f31b4081eae9ba5a5b2", "input": "Review: this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.banned... what a joke... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29b52cfd07854aa4aca95de7f80b59db", "input": "Review: No,Basically your watching something that doesn't make sense. To not spoil the film for people who actually want to this take a look at the flick I will explain the story.A normal everyday to day women, is walking down a street then find's herself driving by in her own car. She follows her and many events take place during that time that include her and her family.I specifically made an account to comment on this film, of how horribly written this was. The acting was great, the events were great, but the story just brought it nowhere - it could of been added to tremendously and be made into a worldwide epidemic. I'm not sure what the writer was trying to accomplish by making this, usually at the end of films most of your questions get answers but this film has you asking, What just happened and 1 hour 20 minutes just passed for nothing.Spoiler Starts__They had this area between 2 dimensions (ours and behind the glass) that would come into our world and kill us. It was not elaborated on all during the film, and you never know how it was happening or why it was or when it happened. Nothing gets explained during the film. The main character shouldn't of even been the main character. At the end of the film the guy who finally figures it all out and runs away (her sisters boyfriend) should of been the main character but sadly the movie ends 20 seconds after. I bought this movie for $10, threw it out right after.. don't waste your time. I really hope nothing like this is made again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09914267e8be4e9c98a29ae081628ed7", "input": "Review: (First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/\"Norwegian\" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -\"Da\" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called \"norwegian\" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the \"norwegian priests\"The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c78830ea16442ff8d0cff0c8764fe7a", "input": "Review: I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to \"Army Of Darkness\" and \"Shaun of the Dead\", as well as \"On par with The Re-Animator\". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from \"Weird Science\" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from \"The Explorers\". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of \"Wheelsy\" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.So in the end I give \"Slither\" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2900f282cf4482992a12e8e7351ec69", "input": "Review: I like films that don't provide the typical \"happy ending,\" and that's my main reason for my liking of this movie. Alice Marano (Danes) and her best friend Darlene (Beckinsale) are arrested in Thailand for narcotics smuggling after a tip anonymously phoned in to the Thai authorities. The film does a solid job of keeping viewers guessing as to whether (or which) of the girls was involved, and Bill Pullman is perfect as their sleazy lawyer. Jacqueline Kim turns in a terrific performance as his more kind, magnanimous wife, Yon, who is also an attorney. I wish the girls had been abused more in the prison, as another commenter has suggested, as I've heard that Thai prisons can be quite brutal. Where this film grabs me, however, is its ending. Alice subjects herself to a sentence of 96 years in total so that Darlene can be pardoned, and we (the viewers) realize that they are both innocent. Any film that defies my expectation of the ending wins extra points with me, and this well-acted drama is certainly deserving. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-82e9535d4d3a4dbeba42b73fda062867", "input": "Review: Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: \"What does that have to do with this movie?\" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say \"Ha ha, you had sex with your mom,\" which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f2079b7733c46b3a674c3e0083adbfd", "input": "Review: This film was just absolutly brilliant. It actually made me think. During the whole movie I was confused as hell. I loved everything about it...it was just so confusing and so twisted and weird, it was hard not to love it. All of the actors were phenominal, and no one could have done a better job...This is one of my favorites of the year...it deserves an ocar. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c23d1de1cdc4066a59fe67a53fc110e", "input": "Review: I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb924987d0a74fc2abe820d7ae95de19", "input": "Review: This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but \"She is raped\" \"They laugh to her\" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b492dc6943944eb808261a623d5a554", "input": "Review: As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his \"slut\" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. \"The Dentist\" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8033589b64ea4c4fa4ccab685e2c1476", "input": "Review: Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS \"orbits\" in time around their \"perfect day.\" The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out \"You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?\" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, \"The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it\"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, \"What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?\" and \"You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet.\" The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ad7cba06f914c20b873f4d55b2a481d", "input": "Review: Scary Movie 3 (2003) was a bad idea to begin with. The last film was a mediocre effort. Put it next to this load, it's a comedy classic. Whilst part two was filled with a lot of dated humor and cheap shots, at least it was funny. There's nothing funny about forced humor. Jokes, pratfalls and sight gags are supposed to be naturally funny. Hitting the viewer over the head with tired jokes is not cool. The humor in this film was caters to juvenile imbeciles who'll laugh at anything. When they catered to the junior high school crowd, any sense of self respect was tossed out the window. Ring parodies are not funny. I have watched them in comedies since 1998. They're so dated. Michael Jackson jokes are not cool either. What's even worse is making fun of two broken down has been \"performers\" whose best days were NEVER.The death of American cinema has been a slow one. Films like this are the nails that are being pounded into it's coffin. Whatever happened to real humor? I haven't laughed out loud in a movie theater in a long time. Too many bad movies rot the brain. You want proof? Go to your local mega chain video rental store and see what's on the shelves. This movie is bad. Don't believe the hype. I would rather watch Scary Movie 2 in a continuous loop than to suffer through this poor excuse of a comedy ever again!Definitely not recommended (unless you have a handful of brain cells). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0de7a017b6b24f89a909fb7b67144fcf", "input": "Review: How to lose friends and alienate people is decent comedy with a bit of romantic approach.It's actually a story of Sidney Young(Simon Pegg) breaking through in journalist and magazine writing business which is interpreted in a funny way. Simon Pegg made an OK appearance, slightly worse than his usual. Movie is not hilarious or funny all the way or anything like that but it has its moments, and those moments are really hilarious.I recommend this fun and worth watching American with English cream comedy to all people who just wanna sit, relax and enjoy movie for what it is. If you're about to watch this movie with critical approach then you should pass unless you want to be disappointed and start trashing it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0089e8e2baff46d58b028e3bd2f400e1", "input": "Review: Before seeing this, I was put off by the subject matter, but this is not your average triumph over adversity story. Although this is technically about blind Tibetan kids climbing Mt. Everest, there is so much more to it. This movie shows the very strong, often contradictory personalities of two highly accomplished blind adults leading the children, Erik and Sabriye. Erik is an American blind mountain climber/athlete and Sabriye is a blind German academic who started a school in Lhasa Tibet. They are both exceptional in their own ways, but disagree on what will really build confidence in the kids. Erik wants them to reach the summit while Sabriye wants them to enjoy Erik as a role model and take pleasure in moment. The nuances are complicated and one walks away not really being sure who was right or if the whole climb was a mistake or a great idea. The most profound scenes are with the Tibetan children themselves and the hardships they faced before finding their way to the school. The most moving for me was the story of Tashi, a frail teenager who grew up on the streets after his parents abandoned him. I could watch a whole movie on his life and was happy to learn that thanks to the school, he is now running a successful small business with some of his fellow students. If you liked Spellbound or Murderball, you will love this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3efec9576bd47b2ab0ce5531fd64a2b", "input": "Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's \"Elm Street 4\", and \"Die Hard 2\" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in \"Ricochet\", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in \"Days of Thunder\", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting. Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd9dc50584a042a88d8c380b46901514", "input": "Review: This is the story of Australian commandos who are captured out of uniform after a raid. Since they are out of uniform, they are, justly, treated as spies. As such, they are tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Japanese court-martial, out of admiration for their heroism, authorizes that they be given a warrior's death. Of course, under the code of Bushido, this means that they are to be beheaded. A fate for which, as westerners, they are unprepared. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1b5e9e2041d460f916256d6b14c92d3", "input": "Review: This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the \"Night Gallery\" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dce6ea86d21044e4a97f6f3213cfa142", "input": "Review: Maverick cop with family problems and fondness of using his gun – Check! Isolated location with valuable object which is begging to be stolen – Check! Tasty looking love interest – Check! Assorted band of dumb cardboard cannon fodder villains with dodgy European accents – Check! German sounding bad guy played by an English actor with a piece of corny dialogue for every occasion – Check! Corny one liners – Check!Deary me, does this film take the wee wee or what? The clichés come as thick and fast as an avalanche and most of the cast just stand around gawping at just how bad the script is!In a blatantly cheap and cheerful straight to video rip off of Die Hard only set on a mountain (complete with some nicked lines from the aforesaid) we have all the usual action move cliché's ticked off progressively as we go along with some good old fashioned violence and nudity thrown in to wake up anyone in the audience who may just have nodded off.Jack Wild is the cop in full on John McClane mode here who even manages time for the ye ancient bad guy with gun has used all his bullets gag at one point.In amidst this mess, there are a few well known recognisable faces who I can only assume needed the cash and/or were simply playing it for laughs right from the pointless opening scene that had nothing to do with the plot whatsoever through to the final implausible conclusion complete with ropey dialogue and even ropier effects.Looking up this three quid from the Supermarket bargain bin effort on IMDb I am astonished to find that this dud spawned not one but two sequels, I have got to find these gems on DVD! It looks like the first sequel is a rip off of Under Siege 2 and the second sequel, well goodness knows! One thing that is always a bad sign is that the actor playing Jack changes with each film and even the character's name seems to change for the third instalment.Still, blind purchases of cheap DVD's just would not be the same if studios didn't keep trotting out material of this awful quality!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-07ead82e811441708a2db7830208a50c", "input": "Review: This is a racist movie, but worthy of study and enjoyment. First time through it the natural inclination is to focus on Erbe & Dad. They have a relaxed, peaceful thing going, what with her still at home about to graduate from high school, and him retired and kicking back waiting for inspiration to do something. Second time through you realize how horribly the sister's husband is dissed by her friends in the backwoods blues bar. He takes it, it's the thing to do these days, and the critical moment passes as if they were chatting about the weather. In that same scene the sister's blues song is a real tear-jerker if you're the least bit sensitive and like that kind of music. Her performance feels like the climax of the story; a blues story with the good guys being \"people of color\" in their element in backwoods, SC. Meanwhile, all the white folk in the movie lead what appears to be shallow meaningless lives fit only for making babies. That's cool, long as you recognize it as fiction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ceadd45e33e447b186166846da4a8844", "input": "Review: Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e882193470974491900cb49af5d574b5", "input": "Review: That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a \"HELP THE POOR\" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ff36f67851b40b2825dc2bdbe5a9156", "input": "Review: I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-235cc49a2c2e4d5f8d4976bbb9d68b9a", "input": "Review: I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a351856d1144f769b5fc40475ab1af7", "input": "Review: This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a91e8026cfd140fb8daaf496dba85565", "input": "Review: \"Don't Drink the Water\" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind \"The Honeymooners\". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from \"Pooh\", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in \"The Hustler\" and \"Soldier in the Rain\". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in \"Bonnie and Clyde\" and \"Rachel, Rachel\" None of the other actors do particularly well either.Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.1/2* out of 4 stars Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ca5d184326e46628555e11abd511e06", "input": "Review: You're using the IMDb.You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.It's something you enjoy doing.And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.The word genius is often overused.THIS is genius. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3452739cf03d4520aecb5048c5240f0d", "input": "Review: The setting and actors make this television movie for me the best rendition of Dickens' classic tale. George C. Scott is very believable as is the rest of the cast. His Scrooge oozes with nastiness until the very end of the movie. Then his character changes to one who is truly repentant. The 19th Century English town chosen for the setting creates an ambiance that is fitting to Dickens and adds to the plausibility of this film. It is a movie I watch every Christmas along with the real Grinch and It's A Wonderful Life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1755a5310b1f44ae9e9737895fc5be95", "input": "Review: The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsenseThe film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wigDirection is outdated Music is badAnil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3b1b070547f490397be724270440911", "input": "Review: It looks to me as if the creators of \"The Class Of Nuke 'Em High\" wanted it to become a \"cult\" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1b9ffc3cdc44b3e883eb0dda5ba14ab", "input": "Review: First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-47f1f82bf3d946e19f8747ce94998eaf", "input": "Review: \"A Mouse in the House\" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the \"rear\" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54b60941523e4aebbc42ed6d2ea5223f", "input": "Review: Joe Buck (Jon Voight) decides he's going to leave his small life in Texas and make it big in the Big City. The women are there for the asking and the men are mainly \"tutti-fruttis.\" Wide-eyed, he comes to New York City, not prepared for the series of humiliating misadventures he experiences, one worse than the other. In the middle of that chaos, he meets and befriends Rico \"Ratso\" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffmann), a homeless-looking man who lives in an apparently condemned building.There isn't much of a story as MIDNIGHT COWBOY is a series of vignettes destined to bring forth not only Joe Buck's plights in the City, but also inter-cut to his past and show us in shock cuts and semi-psychedelic dream sequences snippets of his past: his failed relationship with his girlfriend Annie (Jennifer Salt) who was gang-raped, his abandonment by his mother, and his apparent abuse by his grandmother, who also had a habit of hustling men for money. An air of pessimism dominates the film almost from the wistful beginning as Nilsson plays throughout the opening credits his deceptively flowery \"Everybody's Talking'\"; we feel that even while we want Joe to eventually make his mark in the City, the odds are high he won't and will end up working for pennies in a dead-end job -- shown in a masterful shot from his outside point of view later in the film as he watches a man work as a dishwasher in a soup kitchen through a window and sees himself. We know from the look in his eyes he does not want to end like this.A dark story of dashed hopes, John Schlesinger creates haunting images of lost souls at the end of the 60s, and at the center, the prevailing friendship between two men as they struggle to make some sort of meaning to their lives amidst the elusive comfort of a dignified life. There is the implied notion that they may have been lovers -- Ratso's reaching out to hug Joe in the party scene and their the final embrace at the end certainly points at this -- but this is essentially a buddy film, one that manages to survive, literally, to the death, and bring some form of hope to Joe who at the end in Florida seems much changed, older, wiser. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e9992045aa24e338bc5526959184022", "input": "Review: Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly – I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the \"plot\" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right – we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews – I have seen \"user reviews\" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that \"praise\" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea64661d2e7d497dac4b3a5575fe08b4", "input": "Review: Opening the film with a Bach Toccata is an aural hint of what is to unfold in this intense drama. All the compositional devices Bach perfected to keep his listener (and the performer) intrigued and entertained applies to this film. There isn't a mutual tenderness between the two lead characters and the lead female in the final scene I feel is justified in stating she was raped even though her victimizer feels she was forewarned that he was a cad. Mamet compellingly explores the emotional chasm and differences between the genders but I feel he is clueless about how they actually compliment one another given a healthy sense of humor. If Mamet ever developed a healthy humorous take on the interaction between the genders I wonder how this work would have ended? As it exists it is very somber and mean spirited. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb68a83041ec4cd1a24bc63bfc05b157", "input": "Review: I saw \"The Grudge\" yesterday, and wow... I was really scared, a good thing. I love horror-movies, and I really liked this one. There were so many 'surprise'-scenes (what's the English word?) that made you jump in your seat. Though, too much screaming from the audience made it difficult not to laugh. I think the most scary scene was... on the bus, when the face flashes by on the window, or when Yoko's walking without her chin. The make-up is also VERY good. Sometimes you could really see it was there, but it was still adding a freaky look to the scene. The boy was very good indeed, so cute without make-up and so terribly scary with it on. The next time I hear a cracking noise I will probably feel pretty scared... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87d410f51b774261829ac95968412755", "input": "Review: I know the film snobs are snorting. But if you're looking for a surprisingly fun ride through the B-movie jungle, try \"Jake Speed\".A little thin at times, but its one-liners and the location more then make up for this. John Hurt(God love him), seems to be having fun doing his role as the ultra evil white slaver. The nemesis of Crawfords, Jake Speed. He adds a dimension to the film that only a pro like Hurt could provide. Crawford and Dennis Christopher( Jakes sidekick) are a good team,although you do wonder why they both put up with each other.However ,together both Crawford and Christopher portray a team that is just so much fun that, if you can get over yourself for a moment, you may find yourself acting like a kid again at the situations and the inherent suspense they provide.The delicious Karen Kopins does a great job as the damsel in distress that is more concerned about the motives of her rescuer then her tormentor.I have yet to find a movie that is as much fun without getting preachy,or bogging down the movie by trying too hard. Not every movie has to be the latest \"Citizen Kane\". And trust me,Wells was an original. So lets remember that sometimes, movies are for fun.Not social commentary or attempting to sway an audience politically. But just for the sheer fun of being alive and living in a time when our hero's live in a celluloid dimension. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c153d9aafdf44f3bba200ea947d6647", "input": "Review: While this movie isn't a classic by any stretch, it is very entertaining as I remember it. I saw it about 15 years ago on HBO and loved the movie. It was written by the same guy that wrote and directed \"Arthur\" and though it isn't as funny as that movie, it does show the potential that Steve Gordon reached with \"Arthur\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bbd7bcc35f14f8fb762579119253aaf", "input": "Review: I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is \"Eh\" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5e98f43c15b44ad8f2a1ae613f1ad39", "input": "Review: Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a \"Napoleon Dynamite\" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.Thank gosh I didn't pay for it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06eafc9172d14a99a5bee2c1470aa2aa", "input": "Review: I've watched this movie a second time to try to figure out why it wasn't as successful (commercially or artistically) as it should have been, and discovered considerable artistic merit--which may ultimately have been its commercial undoing.First of all, this movie attempts \"serious\" science-fiction, social commentary, more than action-adventure. There is action in it, but that's not really what it's about. If you focus on that, you'll end up with (as others have noted) a bad \"Aliens\" clone. But, again, that's not what it's about.The movie is really about Todd's (Kurt Russell) transformation from human to near-machine and back to human (mostly *back*). But because it's not trying to give you a typically glib Hollywood style answer, Kurt Russell must make this transformation without speaking, and largely without broad expressions. And he really does a wonderful job--it can take two viewings to appreciate it.The surrounding \"social logic\" is flawed and it's never adequately explained whether Todd's ability to hold his own against an army of supposedly superior troops comes from his experience on the battlefield or his newfound human-ness or what, but the movie still makes a marvellous showcase for Russell's (easy to underestimate) talent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11e4a3e402fe483abb5c040ef30afa1d", "input": "Review: This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary \"An inconvenient truth\" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called \"EARTH\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43af5b8b897c4908b16d99458a6ac55e", "input": "Review: Wow...I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.Wow...I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.Wow...Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.Wow...Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a54bd4beb1cb4ec98e1df96c4978d556", "input": "Review: I'm a big mark for the music of Neil Young, and with that and the glowing praise the film received in many alt-indie press circles, hit the first showing of Greendale I could find. My excitement was short-lived, as this turgid storyline and weak lyrical momentum left most filmgoers either asleep or disappointed.Neil says the film started as a soundtrack, and the characters came to life so much that they just filmed the soundtrack. Not the best way to craft a story. No character really has an arc, and when \"significant\" events do happen, the viewer doesn't cared, because film technique annoyance levels are so high by that point. The film is all song, and to that end, the characters on end mouth the lyrics as they're sung...the technique works for the first stanza it is done, and is grating on the nerves after that. It doesn't feel real or fake, it just feels unwelcome.Terrible acting, with characters finding one mood and playing all of it. Poor lighting at times. The only kudos I can give the film are in regard to several scenes shot as newscast, but the technique is so used in cinema today that this film did little to further it. An alright soundtrack, but nothing I'm quick to buy. A bad film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0ff143a2505484f95ce77f3de412719", "input": "Review: 'They All Laughed' is a superb Peter Bogdanovich that is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and why? their are many reasons the fact that it's set in new york which truly sets the tone, the fantastic soundtrack, the appealing star turns from Ben Gazzara, and the late John Ritter who is superb. and of course no classic is complete without Audrey Hepburn. the film is a light and breezy romantic comedy that is very much in the vein of screwball comedy from the thirties, film is essentially about the Odyssey detective agency which is run by Gazzara who with his fellow detectives pot smoking and roller skating eccentric Blaine Novak(the films co-producer) and John Ritter, basically the Gazzara falls for a rich tycoon magnate's wife(Hepburn) and Ritter falls for beautiful Dorothy Stratten who sadly murdered infamously after production, 'They All Laughed is essential viewing for Bogdanovich fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9eb4468ffe4f45cfa698337aa71c873a", "input": "Review: This is a great movie for all ages. Its the story about three animals how have to find their way home. There is a bit of a twist at the end and mainly throughout the whole movie. You never know what is going to happen next. This movie makes you cry and makes you laugh. You just don't know what going to happen next. The trek home is all beautiful with all the wonderful wildlife scenes. They producers also spent a lot of money for this movie and it shows too. The animals in this movie were well trained and are great actors/actress themselves. Everything about this movie is great! 10 out of 10 the whole way! Rent or buy it today I can guarantee you will love it the whole family will! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d0ff3d2aaff4c218698900000212daa", "input": "Review: Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)One saving grace was a song performed at the \"talent show\" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called \"I'm A Heat Seeking Missile\". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a \"so bad it's good\" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. Rating: 1 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-97cc1eacb33f4d0ea66b8f9204f9da7d", "input": "Review: This western is done in a different manner than most others. Realism is the key here. Conchata Farrell comes to Wyoming to work for Rip Torn on his ranch. How this is presented makes for a most interesting slice of Americana. I would have preferred to see this on the big screen rather than on tape, but it's worth a look to see just how life was back in the real west. Cinematography is excellent. Solid 9. Torn & Farrell excel in this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07672862115248f987a589a28e66b2ca", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e14c9fb27f64125b9cf54ff05067f16", "input": "Review: If you are going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a71f9764c29481ebabd1d589e7615de", "input": "Review: i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-652ba1de56c04b5d9d421e9f46e4655c", "input": "Review: I have loved this movie all of my life. It's such an intelligent story also, with plenty of classical allusions. eg. The ship that went missing decades earlier was called the Bellerophon. Well, in classical mythology this was the man who slew the Chimera, a legendary beast composed of two or more other creatures. In FP, Walter Pidgeon is clearly the chimera- himself and his Id monster. I like movies where the writers have clearly credited their audiences with a modicum of intelligence, unlike most modern blockbusters which spend $150m on special effects, but about $1.50 on a screenplay.Cheers Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02a00dd3d91a4d0f8265b4388ceaf5c8", "input": "Review: Otto Preminger's noir classic works almost as a flip-side of LAURA...while that film was glitzy and features the high fa-luting Clifton Webb, this film is a whole lot seamier. Dana Andrews is a less than good cop who accidentally kills a man only to have it potentially pinned on the father of the girl he loves. Preminger keeps things moving at a brisk clip so that lapses in logic are easily overlooked. Andrews is quite fine (a lot less wooden than he's been in the past) and the stunningly beautiful Gene Tierney is stunningly beautiful! Creepy Craig Stevens plays the unlucky victim. WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS is a must see and a terrific companion-piece to Preminger's equally lurid WHIRLPOOL (also starring Tierney). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf0e38ce3ce241bd92549b2d76ae3a9c", "input": "Review: The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's \"talents\" other than drumming.Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2ae02ef66044721a833d8088f774323", "input": "Review: A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his \"prisoner\". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-693d5cfa32064f1a8289552df52d3898", "input": "Review: This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-693406c347d644e597685cfc911dcc08", "input": "Review: Walerian Borowczyks La Bete (1975) was obviously received in different ways: Some were appalled, some were shocked others applauded the courage. I however am completely untouched, bored and cannot stop asking myself why the display of incoherent, inconsistent images which vaguely orbit around a central theme are considered an intellectual journey.What was this movie actually about? Growing sexuality in a woman? I've seen great films on this subject, but this is not one of them. How can one attempt to portray a growing sexuality in a girl without at least trying to characterize her as a person not only as a narrative device to dream (in the nude) of beasts. Where there are no characters, there is no character study. The woman persecuted by the beast was not adolescent, the girl having sex with the black butler (is he also characterized as a beast?) has a very grown up attitude to sexuality, so where is the consistency? Is it a movie about religion? If yes we would need a bit more thematic material than a priest without function, character and charisma, but with a strong desire towards two young boys.Is it about bestiality? The metaphoric feel of the movie forbids any realistic examination of bestiality, especially as realistic examination requires realistic characters. So no real bestiality here. Some mythic beast and two priests talking to each other about the sin of bestiality. Enough for a college essay on the topic? I don't think so.Is it about sex? Is it about anything? I don't know. I only know that showing a fired gun doesn't make a film a war movie. Dealing with a topic must mean more than displaying its own associations with the theme.So look across the controversy. Don't be scared by the bestiality, nudity, ejaculations, masturbation and stuff. I am not. Look at it as you look at any other story and you might discover that this is a poorly made, poorly edited, poorly acted, really poorly written (okay, some pictures are quite nice, and the main character is a really good looking girl) cerebral masturbation of a director who thinks beating around the bush in a hypnotic slow manner will make a story intelligent. It doesn't. It makes it boring. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6699ac3fb02443f9c742f66590c569a", "input": "Review: Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9c9fba9f58e4e2890905f66a987c8ec", "input": "Review: This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life. Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks \"What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers. But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art. We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b14d4545e764e68b0e73c8c0e6d23b0", "input": "Review: I saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01a1c2b10d044d77af15fb3de738b639", "input": "Review: Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching \"At Dawn they Sleep.\" The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as \"War of the Robots\" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of \"At dawn they sleep\" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer \"i have no idea what happened in this movie\"ness. \"Witches mountain\" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c561cff01e2434d9dbdc71aab765c11", "input": "Review: Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dcad8a294984a4bad3fe18d78feab61", "input": "Review: I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5af63ce2c65a442da387ef3e743b757a", "input": "Review: This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7e475a7f3a845e5a4fc9dde03aee2b0", "input": "Review: This has to be the best adaptation I have seen it's my favourite and I think it stays very close to the book.What really makes this a must see though is the casting of the two lead actors.The wonderful Timothy Dalton is the best Rochester I have seen on screen brooding and tragic,while Zelah Clarke is the perfect combination of strength,courage,shyness and gentleness as Jane. The story(as i'm sure most people know)is this,the young and plain Jane Eyre is a teacher at a charity school for girls in the 1800's who advertises her services as a governess in the newspapers.She is offered the post of governess at the big mansion Thornfield Hall to tutor Adele the young ward of the halls mysterious and respected owner Mr Rochester. As the months go on he falls in love with Jane and puts into effect a few situations to try and see if Jane is as madly in love with him as he is with her.However there is a secret still waiting to be discovered at Thornfield Hall and when it is it's effects are devastating.This is a moving and well acted drama with nice locations and gorgeous costumes plus as I said earlier excellent acting especially from Zelah and Timothy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-537841d1bab748f7865eb2c877640241", "input": "Review: Hey,If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you \"do something\" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f1b73ed39654b799d8fa4dc63533b10", "input": "Review: ...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in \"Mordor\", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f73fd7fc947d44f88b0ac367b5984c5f", "input": "Review: Mesmerizing, breathtaking and horrifying, this hauntingly beautiful film is the \"Apocalypse Now\" without fiction. Slow in pace, quiet in mood, it gives good glimpses of the poisoned patches of Earth that may well be signs of an inevitable doom.There is no doubt in my mind -- the nature is plagued and we are the disease. Greed, the very essence of humanity that drives evolution and progress, has turned us into something like cancer, on its way to consume the host and die with it...Manufactured Landscapes is quite an unforgettable viewing experience - at least I'll never regard my toaster and iron the same way again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a84466b894542e3bee65fc0901dee18", "input": "Review: this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the \"special effects\" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f905b3752cd44fd8abc0c5a19808b365", "input": "Review: It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see \"The Medusa Touch\" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced \"Harper\" and \"The Long Goodbye\"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated \"L.A. Confidential\" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for \"Gandhi\") and an international cast, I found \"The Medusa Touch\" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider \"Carrie\" and the underrated \"The Fury\" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2dbfb6982124e21b0d2df6f94606f71", "input": "Review: This movie was supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both… STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac6702b48c704a25abee24ca9456f831", "input": "Review: This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8281997cbba04a259e48db9d9af3500e", "input": "Review: This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e2d20090e4114fa2a90d7a66775233e7", "input": "Review: I had seen Marion Davies in a couple of movies and really couldn't understand her appeal. She couldn't dance for peanuts, she didn't attempt to sing and as for her acting - she seemed in a trance. But I hadn't seen her silent comedies and this film is wonderful. Rather than kidding her own image, as has been suggested here, to me it seems a satire on Gloria Swanson, who did start off in slapstick comedies, went on to highly emotional women's pictures and did end up marrying a Count. Marion, a top mimic, also did a funny rabbit imitation whenever she wanted to be seen as grand, that was Gloria Swanson spot on!!!Colonel Pepper (Dell Henderson) has motored all the way from Georgia to Hollywood, determined to prove that his daughter, Peggy, (Marion Davies) will be the greatest star ever. Their hope dwindles and they are down to their last 40 cents when they meet Billy Boone (William Haines) who works at the slapstick studios and promises to get Peggy a job. Peggy thinks she is going to be a great dramatic actress but the studio think she is a fantastic comic. They convince her to make the film and at the preview she is a great success. Charlie Chaplin asks for her autograph but she doesn't recognise him and treats him pretty rudely. \"Who was that short little guy\" - when she finds out she faints!!! Peggy and Billy get a call from High Art Studio but only Peggy is wanted and suddenly she is on her way. There is a funny scene where she sees a star she doesn't think much of - it's Marion Davies!!!She finally gets a chance of being a dramatic actress - but she can't cry!!! It is a hilarious scene as the director tries everything to get her to cry and when he succeeds, she can't stop!!! Her new leading man, Andre (Paul Ralli) convinces her to forget her comedy past and become elite and sophisticated - she even adopts a new name - Patricia Pepoire!!! She also seems to have forgotten Billy and her dad - she has developed a \"STAR\" personality!!! When the slapstick studio picks the same location as \"Patricia's\" movie, Billy is thrilled to see her but quite unprepared for her snobby attitude. When she calls him a cheap clown he realises that she is not the girl he once knew. After a studio luncheon ( a magnificent panning shot of some of the greatest stars of the day) \"Patricia\" gets a call from the Boss. It seems her films are a flop and no theatres want to book them - the public are tired of her mannerisms and want the old Peggy back. She and Andre decide to get married, she dreams of being a Countess (even though Billy says that Andre used to serve him spaghetti in a little cafe downtown and is no more a Count than he is). On her wedding day, Billy visits and after a hilarious custard pie fight she realises that Billy is the one for her.It was amazing to see all the guest stars - John Gilbert is seen going through the MGM gates, Lew Cody is talking to Elinor Glynn, who not only wrote \"It\" but several racy romances that were made into MGM movies. William Haines, another actor whose movies I had always wanted to see, was great - especially in the cafeteria scene , he had wonderful comic timing. Harry Gribbon was hilarious as the comedy director - there were so many hilarious scenes in this film and Marion was at the top of them all - I'm giving this film 10 out of 10.Highly, Highly Recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4806c6d5b614b0082514d1ed24a9299", "input": "Review: Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e6c2423c06a40e7a199b3593c3c82cf", "input": "Review: Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias..... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81f643be33c04e5a8e57cbb671f89bc1", "input": "Review: An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7b2591286484cd4bfc6a40d9ffb1fd9", "input": "Review: Due to the invention of a \"The Domestication Collar\", flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in \"The Wild Zone\". In the town of \"Willard\", pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's \"Domestication Collar\" is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's \"Timmy and Lassie\") and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling \"Zomcom\" authorities. \"Fido\" doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing \"Wild Zone\"; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-acc03a16364845d18cb859cf02f1a196", "input": "Review: The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her \"aunt's\" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6afe9914d424cc4b02dad2c949b2ec4", "input": "Review: Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who \"took one\" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the \"What the...?\" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f18310fdb458491bb96f9a0c976e0c56", "input": "Review: First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-167d420bb38846fe9dd78c34a294579b", "input": "Review: Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f24385a8f4f54bdebaace367211979c8", "input": "Review: The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-38cf45b963ce43d38259fcf938f7db43", "input": "Review: A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote \"My Beautiful Laundrette\", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like \"Sunday, Bloody Sunday\" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1637ab8a02ce428498162f55e5fa5fe1", "input": "Review: WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.I wish'd it would never end.Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy. This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.Incredible!8-22-06. Walt D in LV Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-564e753a6ac844c28c9323552ae68812", "input": "Review: Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.* out of 4(Bad) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a30aed68a54405389603ca84d6f2588", "input": "Review: I've bought certain films on disc even though the second rate presentation wasn't an option. A certain company I won't identify here has put out several pan and scan dvds (\"Clean and Sober\", \"Star 80\", and this one, to name just three!) of films I don't think anyone wants to see in this compromised format. Some discs give the viewer a choice of 16x9 or full screen and others are just in their theatrical release 1.66:1 ratio.That off my chest, I'll say \"Deathtrap\" was a spooky and oddly enough, amusing picture. My only complaints are the tinny score (what IS that f____g instrument that is usually dragged out for films set in 18th century France?) and Dyan Cannon screaming at regular intervals. Couldn't her character have been an asthmatic who grabbed for an inhaler when she was stressed? Minor complaints, both. The benefits of discs include being able to fast forward to get beyond those things which you don't like.I never saw a staged version of \"Deathtrap\", so having these folks in the roles sets a great impression of their careers at the time. Before Broadway tickets cost an arm and a leg, the theatre was more affordable to average people. Now, anyone paying less than a king's ransom to get live entertainment probably isn't going to a hit show on the great hyped way.Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve were both large, virile specimens in the early 80s and that's integral to how we'll react to their profession and overall image here. They're definitely not bookish men who can't fight or will back down from an obstacle. The two are equally great as their criminal stubbornness becomes their ultimate \"deathtrap\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c522d83db1b14301ae8ab3105dc72b2e", "input": "Review: How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-93ac0c1637e747a8817a176cd79b77a2", "input": "Review: This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to \"Billy Lo\" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dfa145830934430a19f3010be388942", "input": "Review: The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's \"Death Wish II\" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. \"D.W. II\" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). \"10 to Midnight\" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like \"The Evil that Men Do\" and the remaining \"Death Wish\" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.\"Kinjite\" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like \"The Mechanic\", \"Death Wish\", \"From Noon til 3\", \"Once Upon a Time in the West\", \"Red Sun\", \"The Great Escape\", \"The Magnificent Seven\", \"Rider on the Rain\", etc., etc.... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09f7373e3ac24afbb34426057d63c07c", "input": "Review: Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a26d73a6d3ac47d4b5a7d81e5cd7ded6", "input": "Review: I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4544007f9e344e84b93a3ea119609199", "input": "Review: Well you take O.J. Simpson as a all american soldier turned all american bus driver who decides to rescue his passengers on his own just incase no one else is going to and Arte Johnson in an absolutely straight role as the tour guide who doesn't know what to do but doesn't want to admit they are in trouble and combine it with Lorenzo Lamas as one of three baby faced bad boys who intend to kidnap an heiress and leave a busload of people to die on the dessert and you have got to have action, plot twists and a lot of drama. Everyone was good but seeing Lamas as the baddest of the bad boys really blew my mind. He was much too believable as the overbearing bad guy who not only wanted to kidnap the heiress but rape the women and humiliate the guy who tried to stop him. This was evidently long before he cultivated his good guy image. And believe me a 20 year old Lorenzo in tight jeans you really don't want to miss! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54a4a982ee3a4b409512b99c72e03b4d", "input": "Review: Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the \"latin lover\", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b60c075fc235487d9c2c939a4457e77f", "input": "Review: After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of \"Beowulf & Grendel,\" which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard \"Viking\" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in \"Kingdom of Heaven,\" and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from \"Beowulf & Grendel\"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3107e45df18b42df97f0e6a011d0ba37", "input": "Review: National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdb2cf3be9714a73813ddfea15ca6208", "input": "Review: The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said \"Uh oh, this is running too long,\" and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-59b04eabb86c4d72a18a8e8cb6e121f5", "input": "Review: This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, \"I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women\" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.Don't waste your time people. Trust me.My rating: 0/5.0 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-318cbd98eb8c44d79d525f2ec191dd49", "input": "Review: Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-692916b658de49c5ab7135abd57d2155", "input": "Review: I was electrified when I first saw this in 1983 or 1984. Steven Biko is gone half way through the film but the resonance of his courage and wisdom is not forgotten. I didn't when finally in South Africa in 1993. It is also largely a story about friendship and loyalty. When I was in South Africa and heard the audience at a dance recital in Natal sing Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika, my hair stood on its ends. There is a lot to learn from this story for all peoples. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-71b773cd6ad642939786f321dc5ddc07", "input": "Review: I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. - A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. - A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. - I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. - The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. - Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. - How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.Many of the \"surprises\" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-898bb300e4604c4cb47b9b4be7d7f919", "input": "Review: The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-01c84fd53e49438fb0735521a988aef3", "input": "Review: I remember seeing this years ago when it first came out and I was floored by Parker Posey's performance. And the movie was pretty good also. For anyone who's spent a little too much time in the nightclub/after-hours scene, this movie will have a special charm for you. Not too serious, mostly funny, and Parker Posey definitely blazes her talented way through this indie gem.I especially liked the Diaz character (reminded me of every single struggling DJ I've ever known). And many other movies could take a cue from this movie on how to preach the virtue of responsibility without being boring and bland about it.Babaganoosh! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c84c0645258a497fa06dc58ee2c55939", "input": "Review: Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in \"The Maddening\" or any of the \"Look Who's Talking\" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a \"Scooby Doo\" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6a8dac14b0f5472995119d3fbdd227b0", "input": "Review: I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4f17d7a781f499ab99525eae953bdc1", "input": "Review: Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c96c3b6fba6d4cb996fdc262095ba931", "input": "Review: I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home....... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-015d76f441a4497584a5738c12ab9c3d", "input": "Review: FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for this film to come out for almost a year, and finally saw it at the premiere in SB. I met a few of the actors, who were really nice and who were great in the movie. i watched the trailer so many times that i didn't know what to expect but got totally sucked in. the film was really beautiful to look at it and the music was good too. i recommend it to anyone who's a ryan donowho fan, and dominique swain was good in it too. the other actors were good also great. I hope it comes out on DVD soon!!!!!i first got into ryan from watching the OC and then saw him in a bunch of good indies like Imaginary Heroes. He is great in this film, and everything that he does that's indie. I also like Dominique but haven't seen her in as much. Hope to see them both in more soon!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7766aa249cf473599d5da2b32c6811d", "input": "Review: Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6bb8d614d264450af19434297a3eb55", "input": "Review: While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf4697c03d5747ecba89f9b2e6685d30", "input": "Review: I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: \"Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?\" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13f6b597d2954b54ad9b62d18359c4dd", "input": "Review: Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a \"fish out of water\" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the \"fish\" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the \"in your face\" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a8725b83f674634a0173698d3e843ca", "input": "Review: Bela made 9 pics for Monogram, but it was only at THIS one, the 4TH, that things started to come together. All the rest in the series would use this one as the essential template for production, writing and character development. From here on, better or worse, the series would also deal with one essential theme: a scientist (usually Bela) makes experiments in the basement or the old house (sometimes IN the basement in the old house) that causes things to go blooey. This was also the first time that Art Director Dave Milton got a chance to spread his wings. He came on board for BLACK DRAGONS, the flick before, but THIS one is where he gets to make his craft start to click. Lewis made great atmosphere for next to nothing, and was around for all the rest of the Monograms. Casting is key in these, and it's a pretty good one B movie wise, here. You get Barclay and Harlen (also from BLACK DRAGONS),along with Russell, who would star in Lewtons' CAT PEOPLE movies..and Rosetto, from SPOOKS RUN WILD...a nice slice of Poverty Row talent. If you have limited time and budget, start with this one...it sums up everything they had learned up to this point, and gives you something to compare the rest to. The plot? Bela steals gland juice to keep his nasty wife young. They both like to sleep in coffins. If you can read that and smile, the rest will be easy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3744e99276841dc981580ce804ab816", "input": "Review: I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-313129b4d2464a6dbaad52f0c102e3fb", "input": "Review: I had the privilege of watching \"Holly\" at the Edinburgh Film Festival last week. What a powerful and moving story! Holly is a 12 yr old Vietnamese girl who is sold into prostitution by her own family and living in a brothel in Cambodia. Patrick (an American) comes into Holly's life and decides he wants to help her. When Holly is sold again, Patrick desperately searches for her. We follow they're difficult journey through Cambodia and hope for their reunion.Holly is one of millions of children who are sold and trafficked every day. The movie portrays this difficult issue without crossing the line. I walked away wanting to know more about the issue of child trafficking and asking how can I help? This movie should be seen by everyone because it is a beautiful story and it exposes an issue that we should no longer ignore. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f05d2f01398a4fd5883a00a9f09ec3bb", "input": "Review: EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can \"blip\" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the \"faster\" humans.An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed \"She\" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by \"mistake\", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who \"breathe the foul air\" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are \"frogs\".From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and \"quaint\". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be \"beamed up\" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has \"given up\" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e1b6596372fc4bdbac173488388a41c1", "input": "Review: I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!1/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-07349dae63c4475290df4cffa96134f5", "input": "Review: \"La Furia del Hombre Lobo\" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of \"Werewolf Shadow\", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- \"It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all.\") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as \"Waldeman\"). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, \"La Marca del Hombre-lobo\" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdf308d2c7094f9b8b1013daeb7c8f3c", "input": "Review: This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7ca6d1cb64f4a55b00cb3cd1ccb0006", "input": "Review: In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-346053e0124649d29ca9a95a8f5d7f8e", "input": "Review: The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it...\"Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization\")From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-387d53dc792c4af1a2bf8be11574b781", "input": "Review: VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as \"old wine in a new bottle\" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately: * When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-586cf36bfabe4fb3bc4c5616d29e724f", "input": "Review: No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.Carlos is the bomb. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cd73b7698a3491a96b72287b269c1b9", "input": "Review: Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-79947ead148d41d5ba13ac7357a237ac", "input": "Review: THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing \"buddies\" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74ef1a21053f408b9f1a34e0fb46106f", "input": "Review: Though not a horror film in the traditional sense, this creepy little film delivers the goods. It seems a vampire is loose in a small German town draining its victims of their blood. Police Inspector Karl Brettschneider, Melvyn Douglas in one of his early roles, is skeptical believing a crazed killer not a vampire is running amok. The only one who believes him is Ruth Bertin (Faye Wray) the inspector's girlfriend and lab assistant to Dr. Otto von Niemann (Lionel Atwill) who though apparently an eminent scientist goes along with the vampire theory. The townspeople suspect the weirdo Herman Gleib, played with his usual frenzy by Dwight Frye who seems to be having a lot of fun with his role. The film contains quite a bit of humor which helps relieve some of the intensity involved with all the murders being committed. One funny part has Gussie Schnappmann (Maude Eburne), Ruth Bertin's aunt, thinking weird Herman has turned not into a bat but into a dog. Maude Eburne and Dwight Frye make a good comedy team.This budget movie brings in elements from \"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari\" with Dr. Niemann using the power of suggestion to make a somnambulist carry out his orders, from \"Frankenstein\" by using the human blood to help create life in the laboratory, and \"Dracula\" since the murders are believed by everyone except the inspector and his girl to be the work of a bloodsucker. Thses elements are mixed well by director Frank R. Strayer with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. The concoction works. The restored version I viewed used tinting to increase the spooky atmosphere. So try to see the this version if possible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a069566eaf54ea59a57b97c3512a4be", "input": "Review: ***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic \"The Searchers\" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-359f95a1c7a14f64bab673aa64ac1b75", "input": "Review: It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the \"Radioactive Slime Delight,\" in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his \"dilly dick\" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, \"That was a great movie.\" Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a53a69265a874368bd1c8d710fe0127c", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie \"Darkness Falls\", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the \"Nightmare on Elm Street\" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7345521f6ddf40e5a66bac806fad4b6f", "input": "Review: \"That '70s Show\" is definitely the funniest show currently on TV. I started watching it about two and a half years ago, and as soon as I saw it I could tell it was a great show. I like all the characters, but my personal favorites are Fez and Kelso. Leo was also an awesome character while he was there, I really hope he comes back because he's hilarious. It's classic when Fez goes \"you son of a bitch!\", and when Kelso yells \"burn!\", that always makes me laugh. They are both great characters and always have something funny to say. Jackie being hot is just another reason to watch the show; she started out being really good looking but damn, somewhere around season 5-6 she just got Really hot. I've seen most of the episodes more than once, some like 10 times, and there still hilarious. This is one of the few shows that I can watch over and over and still laugh at just as much as I did the first time I saw it. The cast is classic; almost everyone is funny, where with many shows there are only a few funny characters. I will be sad to see this show end next year, but it will be going off the air as one of the best shows ever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5a22cac125b420ca6a0889dd4fd64e5", "input": "Review: It isn't always easy to explain what a movie is like, but this time I think I've found it. It reminded me of two movies: Trainspotting (small time criminals scoring some drugs and doing some stupid things in Schotland) and The Blair Witch Project (because of the style of filming).It's about the loyalty between two friends, one of them is coming out of jail, the other one hasn't been caught yet. With a stolen vehicle they drive through the Scottish countryside but than run out of petrol. As they try to find some fuel, they find a farm in the middle of nowhere. The farmer thinks they want to rob him and points a gun at one of them. Than it all goes wrong. One of the friends accidentally shoots the farmer's daughter and they have to run. What follows is a man hunt through the fields and woods of Schotland. The two friends literally have to run for their lives.Apparently this movie was shot in only 12 days time. OK, that's not exactly unbelievable because the biggest part of it is always in the same place: the Scottish countryside, but I still find that quite amazing. Especially because this isn't actually a bad movie. It's perhaps not the greatest movie ever, but they still can be proud of what they achieved. I had a nice time watching it and overall I enjoyed the movie. I give it a 7/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-947ed7079b674ca5a3ef6e20a43037f7", "input": "Review: Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...A red toolbox of death? Please....Hypothermic weak thugs...Acting from hell...Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-( Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4894787787aa4f698cc7dfb17167f128", "input": "Review: Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fbf72e0b20a34f6c9e4ed88a74a15b78", "input": "Review: Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ef42c2db03246e2853bd0458412f43b", "input": "Review: Yes, I am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was lame!!!!!!!!!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd5791d5bb3a479ea496c881694d524c", "input": "Review: Man, I really love the new DVD that Universal put out. I've never seen THE SENTINEL look this good since I had to put up with crappy, grainy VHS tapes for years. Unfortunately there are no extras beyond a trailer that looks pretty worse for wear. And AVOID the Goodtimes DVD at all costs. It sucks.Anyway, troubled fashion model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into haunted NYC brownstone, only it's more than just haunted. It's also a portal to hell and the Vatican keeps an old blind priest (John Carradine) to keep watch over it and make sure the devils and arch-angels don't escape. This has an all star cast full of old-timey actors like Ava Gardner, Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer etc... as well as cameos of upcoming 80s stars including Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum (who's voice was mysteriously overdubbed) and Tom Berenger. And you won't even recognize Jerry Orbach from LAW & ORDER. I had to do a double-take when I didn't quite place where I'd seen him before.Nice gore scenes of Alison slicing the eye and nose off her dead father's rotting corpse that's been possessed by the devil. And there's a neat ending where disfigured, deformed people try to haunt Alison into committing suicide so she won't be the next one to guard the portal. It seems Alison's troubled past makes her a prime candidate by the Vatican to become the next sentinel.An excellent, creepy 70s classic from director Michael Winner that shouldn't be missed. I also recommended it for those who want something a little more imaginative beyond the usual stupid teenager slashers and horror comedy.7 out of 10- Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-194dda85910f4e23aa58f732b61d91d7", "input": "Review: Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of \"The Honeymooners\",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.Eddie Murphy,when he was on \"Saturday Night Live\",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of\"Saturday Night Live\".\"Eddie Murphy Delirious\"is his best stand up performance next to \"Eddie Murphy Raw\".I give \"Eddie Murphy Delirious\" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f8f9e50bd1d4f00a4b39cddb2569f47", "input": "Review: Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's \"son\". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and \"robotic\" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f52b8f987cf4a4b8db6f00695f8fbcc", "input": "Review: Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44b3b15e16f64e5d9149aebbea6456a7", "input": "Review: If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b78d7055c134402595e7b37f72b48443", "input": "Review: This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c221df439d0a4a20b525c79d38925eb8", "input": "Review: I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-84a7746a3f354ff7a5ee15b5e6de0cb3", "input": "Review: It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b161cb271dbf43d4a2cf7225b7d7e43b", "input": "Review: About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that \"mood\" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where \"Leah\" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of \"Leah\" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0cce624d7994a5087bcc645d384b194", "input": "Review: A film with very little positive to say for it.Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen \"that\" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on \"medication\".With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk \"horror\" music fails to add atmosphere.Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-86c4939d6e284b6abcfe04aad9979263", "input": "Review: So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.Boy, was I wrong.End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d630faa5de74140a8c83fbf2d443907", "input": "Review: As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). > Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a87301a43a74e9ebeab0d816e37ec6d", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create \"nothing\", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-577ae71bbb4e40d3898929c855cd0fdc", "input": "Review: What can i say about the first film ever?You can't rate this, because it's not supposed to be entertaining. But if you HAVE to rate it, you should give it a 10. It is stunning to see moving images from the year 1895. This was one of the most important movies in history. I wonder how it was to be one of the people who saw the first movie ever! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62c6f355ab3b43e4a43aab10a77f471f", "input": "Review: The creators of south park in their own film here, this is a brilliant film with a huge entertainment factor. If you like Naked Gun films and are not young and not too mature or serious on your humor, you'll love this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-13d70028667e4aefa66c01358d00f3ee", "input": "Review: Without \"mental anachronism\", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the \"disenchantment of the world\". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of \"primitive thought\". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-65294a7439cb409a8aeaa511b86266f9", "input": "Review: \"The Groove Tube\" was initially shown on video, in the first \"video theaters\" here in Boston. In one room, there were TV monitors on high stands, with old movie theater seats, in small groups facing the monitors. There were old refrigerators stocked with Pepsi, and baskets of York Peppermint Patties. In a second, smaller room, there were no seats, just large pillows. That was the 'smoking' room, i.e., people got high in there. That act only added to the hilarity of the video.I was a 'frequent viewer'; the scenes I liked most and remember to this day are: Koko The Clown, The Kramp Family Kitchen (Kramp Easy-Lube Shortening), Safety Sam/ VD PSA, the Chevy Chase hitchhiker w/ nude runs through the woods, the Finger Ballet on what was eventually revealed to be the nude body of a woman. The last item was very reminiscent of the late, incredible Ernie Kovacs. Now, I've lost a lot of readers that are under 48 (\"who is Ernie Kovacs??\") but trust me, it's funny stuff.One reason I was a 'frequent viewer' was that I, and my friends, would bring other \"Groove Tube\" virgins to see it. We would sit and slyly watch the faces of the 'virgins' as the \"Safety Sam\" PSA would play. As the camera slowly zooms in on \"Sam\", we would wait for that \"OH!\" of recognition on the 'virgin's' face. Each time was more hilarious than the last. And then that 'virgin' would then bring a friend to see the show, repeating what we had done. To get this joke, you must watch the video.Yes, some of it is dated, but most plays, film, television, and now videos are. Just look at any video made in the 1980's.I did see \"The Groove Tube\" in a theater as a film, a grainy transfer from the original video. It had been cut, and was missing some of the original high-point scenes.The first \"Saturday Night Live\" show, featuring Chevy Chase, elicited instant remarks of, \"that's the guy from \"The Groove Tube\" \", so it was a precursor for Chevy.I can't look at a can of shortening without hearing the voice-over, \"coat your hands with a generous amount of Kramp Easy-Lube shortening...\" and thinking of the \"Kramp Holiday Loaf\" recipe. Always gets me laughing in the Baking Needs aisle in the grocery store.The early 70's were parlous times; \"The Groove Tube\" was fresh, new, and really 'got' the humor of the times. It offered a 'hip generation', humor that wasn't available in any other format/medium. MJH Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78d3c6326b7a4e65808e43dd8232bc10", "input": "Review: There is a really good movie lurking just beneath the surface of the layers upon layers of cheese that is \"the Pagemaster\".I found this out when I watched this again this morning after neglecting it for years and years. I remember hating it with a passion when it first came out, but this time, I found that the special effects are quite good. The plot is just \"the Neverending Story\" with a creativity-endectomy, but it's an okay little flick for anyone who just wants some really awesome eye-candy. The animation is amazing, and I especially liked how the animators let their characters look and act a bit more surrealistic than the norm. I'm giving it a grade of three as I *would* have given it a two (just for parody value) if I had ever decided to watch this movie expecting it to absolutely blow my mind story-wise. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-164246ea70e84701849a01ab3b81ba9f", "input": "Review: The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-84ee080605c84801be08f56073745b17", "input": "Review: At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, \"Apart From That\" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, \"Apart From That\" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.This movie must be seen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a902210d08334d678b4638725ff5bce6", "input": "Review: The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure. Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way aroundexcellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e62bbf82a3ec463bb113206242b62ff7", "input": "Review: Creature Comforts in America should have been released on a different network, or at least been given the chance to have its full run of episodes. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Given that American audiences (seemingly) have the attention spans of a gnat when it comes to the humor that does not consist of profanity laced diatribes, or has a preoccupation with scatological functions (both sound and smells), shows like this will be few and far between. One of the main problems was that however brilliant it was, it was made for a rarefied audience who knew what to expect but was viewed by an audience and board rooms that did not have a clue at to what they were watching. Which is sad, but not unexpected. I would have liked to have seen at least three more seasons of this show even if it was produced for direct DVD release. The material and the interactions between the creatures were rich with sub context and there were other conversations just waiting to be had under the surface. But thanks to Political Correctness, such conversations take place only in my mind. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-29ea63a20a57473f9ec610aba1d29456", "input": "Review: It's a good movie if you plan to watch lots of landscapes and animals, like an animal documentary. And making Pierce Brosnan an indian make you wonder 'Does all those people don't recognize if someone isn't indian at plain sight?' Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f4f8a2d84f3443185956f02ebaed49f", "input": "Review: A very cute movie with a great background provided by the city of Boston and Fenway Park. As a baseball fan and light movie addict, it hit a homerun for me. Plenty of laughs and plenty of authentic baseball scenes with real ballplayers and real references to past Bosox failures. And how enjoyable was it to watch a movie with a baseball theme without having to endure an overage, over-the-hill, self-serving Kevin Costner attempting to make believers out of a critical audience? Jimmy and Drew did a fine job as a young love-struck couple suffering from Jimmy's Bosox \"jones\". It was a bit whacky and out of left field, but there really are Sox fans that are that fanatic and live their lives through the fortunes of their beloved team. The movie coasted along at a fast pace and the ending, although predictable, had the charm and sentimentality of so many other popular movies, without being overly pretentious. Also enjoyable was the return of Willie Garson to the screen. I miss the forever-popular \"Stanford Blatch\" from Sex & the City. He's always funny, even when he does or says very little. So buy yourself two box seats, some popcorn, and get ready for a fun time. \"Fever Pitch\" is a winner. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecec20292e3848b59030e1d94ead133a", "input": "Review: We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-90bf77ea321641b8bc9cb2e55c1c89c7", "input": "Review: This movie was pretty absurd. There was a FEW funny parts. Its goes right in to the bin of movies in my memory where I think, \"Hmm.....that movie had a few funny parts, but overall, pretty ridiculous plot (or lack of).\"I thought it seemed like Ben was trying a little too hard to be a cooky funny guy. And I didn't understand how he was a self made multi-millionaire and still such an idiot. Anyways, I like Ben Affleck. He makes some crap, but hey, I can forgive him. I mean, I liked Jersey Girl, I didn't think Gigli was all his fault, I like him overall. I guess he's kinda like the kid you feel sorry for cuz he just can't seem to get it right.My advice would be to avoid this flick. It didn't really develop in to a workable plot and Catherine O'hara and Jimmy G. weren't used as well as they could have been. They deserved better. Overall, this movie is NOT Home Alone, it's NOT A Christmas Story, its NOT Christmas Vacation or any of the other classics. Forever Forgettable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51d0d79dfc3e41a39ea743c6744d68e9", "input": "Review: Arthur Bach needs to grow up, but that is unfortunately not the only thing he needs to do. According to his extremely rich father, Arthur has to marry a certain wealthy Susan Johnson or he's cut off from the family money ($750 million dollars worth). The problem is, Arthur doesn't love Susan (though I hear she makes some good chicken) and has just fallen head-over-heels for the waitress and part-time shop-lifter Linda Marolla. Arthur is an interesting fellow. He's really just a big kid, born into riches with at least one person looking after him every second of every day. Working just rubs Arthur the wrong way - he likes to have fun, womanize, and of course, drink. Drinking gives Arthur a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde complex; and while that gets him into all sorts of trouble, it's absolutely hilarious to watch on screen. Dudley Moore is great here in this film as Arthur, earning an Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for his performance. Moore is fantastic with the comedic aspects of the film, turning the already funny lines into unforgettable comedic gold, but he is also great in bringing Arthur down to a relatable level and making the character likable. Moore has some help in the co-star department - Liza Minnelli is great as Lina, the spirited nobody who Arthur can't get enough of, and John Gielgud is terrific as Arthur's butler Hobson. Gielgud won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance in this film, and there's no doubting why. Hobson has a stone-solid dry wit and stuck up attitude, but he's always looking out for Arthur - and Gielgud is perfect in the role. Steve Gordon's 1981 film Arthur is short and simple, but delivers laughs a-plenty. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa17f8b367f64de4b684fac7d4f45c0f", "input": "Review: This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little \"Science Lesson\" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7cf625c4cf1439f80e42dd172124b97", "input": "Review: \"Margaritas and Cock...\"This tremendously entertaining film grabs you from the opening scene and never stops delivering laughs, surprises and unexpectedly touching moments. I had more fun watching \"The Matador\" than almost any other film from 2005. It is a wacky film with an unforgettable character, played to perfection by Pierce Brosnan.Julian Noble (Brosnan) is a facilitator (hit-man) who specializes in high-end corporate gigs (assassinating rich dudes). He is also experiencing something akin to a mid-life crisis. After coming to realization that he has no real friends, no permanent home and no planned future, he stumbles into a Mexican hotel bar one night and runs into Danny Wright (Kinnear).Danny is a down-on-his-luck family man who is on the verge of losing the big business deal that just might turn things around for him. He loves his wife dearly, especially so since they lost their young son a few years earlier.The two men are chalk and cheese, hardly any common ground other than that they are in the same desolate bar one night. And somehow a conversation is struck that sets in to motion a chain of events that will change their lives forever.The friendship they form reminded me a lot of Laurel and Hardy. One is the straight man and the other is the persistent fool who gets them into trouble. The interplay is superbly timed and finely tuned, due in no small part to the wonderful performances from Brosnan and Kinnear.But make no mistake... This is Brosnan's film. He imprints one of the most memorable and despicably likable characters of the decade. He could shoot your mother and apologize immediately thereafter and you'd probably forgive him. Brosnan may be cinema's ultimate charmer, but this is his most endearing and complete performance to date. I wouldn't be averse to seeing an Oscar nod for this role.Consider one scene where he overtly ogles a high-school girl with the impurest of thoughts and utters the line, \"All blushy blushy... No sucky fucky\". He does it with the familiar Bond smirk and manages to get away with it. He manages to tell a young boy, \"Tell your mother to lose 30lbs and 20 years. Then get back to me\" without coming across as unlikable. In fact, it makes us like him even more.And yet the film manages to surprise us with some truly touching scenes, most of which come toward the end when the film takes some unpredictable turns. However, when Julian thumbs through his little black book to find someone to call on his birthday, or when Danny and his wife (Davis) console each other in their bedroom one night, the film reaches an unexpected depth of emotion.\"The Matador\" is stylish and energetic. It is constantly entertaining. And it contains a career-defining role for Brosnan as the lonely hit-man looking for normalcy, friendship and a means to do at least one good thing in his life. This is an overlooked gem in 2005 and you should make an effort to see this film as soon as possible.TC Candler of IndependentCritics.com Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-78e68ddc3eda4b718dde8e64c4fbf2d0", "input": "Review: Run away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12f4d1615f2d41c79444c15f6e19f3f2", "input": "Review: The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan \"Never been kissed\") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called \"Clarissa Darling \" or Sabrina Spellman\"I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-603dd4910b944386be50da4c20ecde57", "input": "Review: I think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words \"Clueless and appalling nonsense.\" I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2cb30241938b47909905f7192353e40e", "input": "Review: I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cca087bf7a646de8cfc0e6c2c689910", "input": "Review: FORBIDDEN PLANET is one of the best examples of Hollywood SF films. Its influence was felt for more than a decade. However, certain elements relating to how this wide-screen entertainment was aimed at a mid-fifties audience that is now gone have dated it quite a bit, and the film's sometimes sluggish pacing doesn't help. But, the story's compelling central idea involving the ancient,extinct Krell civilization and \"monsters from the Id\" hasn't lost its appeal and continue to make this film a relevant \"must see\" movie. What I'm mostly interested in saying here is that the current DVD for this movie is terrible. The movie has never really looked that good on home video and it's elements are in dire need of restoration. I hope that will happen soon and we get a special edition of this SF classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fe5082fe5b34f6faa29e5e48ab252b6", "input": "Review: The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a \"walker\" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the \"artistic\" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a \"walker\" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it. As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cda37e57f0374a4ba61eeab8235a3074", "input": "Review: A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The \"What the hell am I doing here with this idiot\" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e9cdaf1d21645fcbc9e348c5fa5f29b", "input": "Review: Frustrating to watch because of one man's stubbornness to leave his native country for the dream land in Switzerland and what he does to achieve that creates heartache for all those involved. Along the journey he encounters scumbags who take advantage of other human suffering and desperation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3883b2d3d407475aa5f1fa46f717dbb5", "input": "Review: You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, \"How did it get made,\" because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.No. The question is \"Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?\" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.And \"dcreasy2001\" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e03a1d7a4be44702a7e2f52793b62cb3", "input": "Review: OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, \"Sound's great! Original!\" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-885fe0c166b04f059b68ab8c1018f132", "input": "Review: It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9ce46c1a0b4433db4725ea3567d21dc", "input": "Review: What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, \"Friends\" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things – and about a porn actor – she fits in perfectly. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e4962d4db87414398aac1a2865223d2", "input": "Review: Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbcaf8f3ff8b4967b87c7b4d78938c54", "input": "Review: Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.I live exactly where they filmed this movie \"san pedro, California\" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach \"Queen Mary\" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.and the mind is a powerful thing.i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.Ty.Victor Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aaa236310f82483dba49e3289230ebfe", "input": "Review: When I decided to watch THE BARBARIANS, starring those twin bodybuilders, Peter and David Paul, I thought it couldn't be that bad because the film was directed by Ruggero Deodato, who has a reputation for creating sleazy movies but well made sleazy movies. Well, THE BARBARIANS is remarkably trashy action/adventure movie that wants to be another CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and fails at every level. The look of the film is all wrong. Some scenes were well shot but the tone and the schintzy, tacky \"disco\" look of the clothes and hair people are adorned with just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, even for a low budget flick like this one.Richard Lynch looks like an old woman with that ridiculous hairdo and costume. He's supposed to be menacing but he comes across as a buffoon. And it's funny to see Eva LaRue Callahan, one of the stars of ALL MY CHILDREN, appear in her first movie, walking around in skimpy fur bikini. I'm sure she wants this dreck to disappear from the face of the earth! The so-called Barbarian twins are okay as the muscle bound heroes but it's almost impossible to construct a proper critique of their acting because their roles are, like everything else in this mess, really ill-conceived. The only way the film tries to differentiate one twin from the other is by having one twin wear a loincloth that covers his ass, while the other twin's loincloth barely covers his muscular butt. I'm not kidding! Don't ask me who's who though.Deodato must have been really desperate to agree to make this film. And his desperation is reflected perfectly in this trashy flick. It's just bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef35dc1dcb1e43b2a0d986314ea4fd8b", "input": "Review: May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched \"Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America\". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of \"What's up Tiger Lily?\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c9ccaf6ed764f2fb2d6617d480700ce", "input": "Review: Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.I was actually shouting at the telly \" they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first \", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c99f213b8aa4dd98a8364a19d9fa011", "input": "Review: Homelessness (or Houselessness as George Carlin stated) has been an issue for years but never a plan to help those on the street that were once considered human who did everything from going to school, work, or vote for the matter. Most people think of the homeless as just a lost cause while worrying about things such as racism, the war on Iraq, pressuring kids to succeed, technology, the elections, inflation, or worrying if they'll be next to end up on the streets.But what if you were given a bet to live on the streets for a month without the luxuries you once had from a home, the entertainment sets, a bathroom, pictures on the wall, a computer, and everything you once treasure to see what it's like to be homeless? That is Goddard Bolt's lesson.Mel Brooks (who directs) who stars as Bolt plays a rich man who has everything in the world until deciding to make a bet with a sissy rival (Jeffery Tambor) to see if he can live in the streets for thirty days without the luxuries; if Bolt succeeds, he can do what he wants with a future project of making more buildings. The bet's on where Bolt is thrown on the street with a bracelet on his leg to monitor his every move where he can't step off the sidewalk. He's given the nickname Pepto by a vagrant after it's written on his forehead where Bolt meets other characters including a woman by the name of Molly (Lesley Ann Warren) an ex-dancer who got divorce before losing her home, and her pals Sailor (Howard Morris) and Fumes (Teddy Wilson) who are already used to the streets. They're survivors. Bolt isn't. He's not used to reaching mutual agreements like he once did when being rich where it's fight or flight, kill or be killed.While the love connection between Molly and Bolt wasn't necessary to plot, I found \"Life Stinks\" to be one of Mel Brooks' observant films where prior to being a comedy, it shows a tender side compared to his slapstick work such as Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or Spaceballs for the matter, to show what it's like having something valuable before losing it the next day or on the other hand making a stupid bet like all rich people do when they don't know what to do with their money. Maybe they should give it to the homeless instead of using it like Monopoly money.Or maybe this film will inspire you to help others. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-088691a1953d4dc6832d66e5ff7b5569", "input": "Review: I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1179acc370354a5e9290b010b17391cd", "input": "Review: Overall, I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to indie film lovers.However, I really want to note the similarities between parts of this film and Nichols' Closer. One scene especially where Adrian Grenier's character is questioning Rosario Dawson's about her sex life while he was away is remarkably similar to the scene in Closer where Clive Owen's character is questioning Julia Roberts, although it is acted with less harshness and intensity in \"Love.\" Also note that \"Anna\" is the name of both Dawson's and Roberts' character. Can't be coincidence. Now Closer is based on Patrick Marber's play and supposedly this film is loosely based on Arthur Schnitzler's \"Reigen\" so I'm not sure how this connection formed.Anyone have an idea? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ab79988a4d14514a6d859438b4c069e", "input": "Review: Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who \"took one\" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the \"What the...?\" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-022cb16f0fd94c568372fe84ba5f5dbc", "input": "Review: This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a07479a3ba9a4cd5b9f108beeeddfac1", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a75a9befeb645578aeaf3311a8756b7", "input": "Review: This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dc90b396f784cc2b983709a083b6e4f", "input": "Review: What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba0de6b2ecca45209e20975c3b8f7e7e", "input": "Review: This is like \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\" in a more surreal, fantasy setting with incredible special effects and computer generated imagery that would put Industrial Light and Magic to shame. The plot may be hard to follow, but that is the nature of translating Chinese folklore to the screen; certainly the overall story would probably be more familiar to its native audience. However, an intelligent person should be able to keep up; moreover, the martial arts scenes potency are amplified by eye popping CGI. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7610fc00735a49d299ad6f6128ce99d8", "input": "Review: This show has a great storyline! It's very believable! A mans wife dies and he cant take care of his children alone so he calls on his brother in law his best friend and many others come later on in the show. Such as Rebeecca Donaldson, ,the lovable yet strong dog Comet , Nikki and Alex who you can find out for yourself (I don't want to spoil it for you) and of coerce Kimmy Gibler! (The sidekick of DJ) but the kids are wonderful too. This is Mary Kate and Ashley first took off! And also you may know Candace Cameron Bure from shows like St.Elsewere Punky Brewster and that's so raven! Jodie Sweetin plays Steph the love able middle child who feels left out. Really this is a very good show! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-302c3e9745ca412190924afc2413c188", "input": "Review: I would almost give it 10 out of 10. However, there are some confusing parts as well as sections that are miss-leading which hurt the flow/continuity of the film. The story line is great and well composed; you will definitely want to watch this quietly to fully understand it. The characters are complicated and so is the story line, expect to be given only enough information to stop scratching your head, it's a film where all is explained in the end. The animation is great and the combination of femme fatal and film noir result in a great film that is unlike anything else I've seen in animation. It is a black and white film and its quiet dark in a few scenes so it's worth watching it on a good T.V, or plasma. The character voices do save this film in its English version, but it would have been more convincing if there were some French accents to emphasize that its happening Paris, I enjoyed it more in French with English subtitles. One the whole its well worth buying on DVD or BlueRay if they have it! And personally if you enjoyed this film you might also like; Waking Life & Ghost in a Shell 2 Innocence, this is just a personal suggestion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c91afaf92c74f39a784770beee50389", "input": "Review: Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53bfec5555594c86a497548d4042099a", "input": "Review: In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale \"Romulus, My Father,\" Eric Bana, of \"Munich\" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).Even though I admire \"Romulus, My Father\" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ace0290e5474079975b68a5f186369b", "input": "Review: I am quite a fan of novelist/screenwriter Michael Chabon. His novel \"Wonder Boys\" became a fantastic movie by Curtis Hanson. His masterful novel \"The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay\" won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back, and he had a hand in the script of \"Spider Man 2\", arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time.Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has also directed wonderful comedic pieces, such as the gut-busting \"Dodgeball\" and the genius short film series \"Terry Tate: Office Linebacker\". And with a cast including Peter Saarsgard, Sienna Miller, Nick Nolte and Mena Suvari, this seems like a no-brainer.It is. Literally.Jon Foster stars as Art Bechstein, the son of a mobster (Nolte) who recently graduated with a degree in Economics. Jon is in a state of arrested development: he works a minimum wage job at Book Barn, has a vapid relationship with his girlfriend/boss, Phlox (Suvari), which amounts to little more than copious amounts of sex, with no plans other than to chip away at a career for which he has zero passion.One night at a party, an ex-roommate introduces Jon to Jane (Miller), a beautiful, smart violinist. Later that night they go out for pie, and she asks Jon a question that begins to shake him from his catatonic state of existence, \"I want you to tell me something that you have never told a single soul. If you do, it will make this night indelible.\" Jon then tells her a reoccurring dream of his in which he wanders about town looking at the faces of strangers passing him by, yet none of them look him in the eye. \"I imagine it must be what death feels like,\" he says.The next day Jane's wild boyfriend Cleveland (Saarsgard) kidnaps Jon from work and takes him out to a hulking abandoned steel mill, and soon Jon, Cleveland and Jane are spending every waking moment together going to punk rock concerts, doing drugs and drinking lots of alcohol. This doesn't sit well with Phlox, who pushes Jon for a more personal relationship, namely letting her meet his new friends and his father. The film then attempts to take us on Jon's journey as he shakes off the shackles imposed on him by his father, Phlox and his dead-end job as he finds freedom and expression through his relationships with Cleveland and Jane.There is a problem having us follow Jon throughout the film: he's completely uninteresting. He has no ambitions, passions or goals. He walks through life like the invisible wraith he described to Jane the night they met. At the outset this isn't a problem. But he never gets any more interesting. He's a completely passive character. He simply follows along the bohemian Cleveland and Jane, but he never once gives us any inkling as to what he cares about or wants to to do with himself.Consequently, the film and its supporting characters have nowhere to go and little to do other than party, have sex and get in arguments. In other words, much ado about nothing. What we have here is the shallow skin of a good movie without anything on the inside. Sweeping cinematography, ponderous voice-over with characters staring off into the distance, lots of sex scenes both straight and gay, big arguments, more angry sex, a chase scene and a tragic death... but it doesn't seem to matter. Ironically, at one point Jane, confused at a number of Jon's aimless actions, asks him, \"What's going on, Jon? What is this all about?\" Yes, Jon, do tell. We in the audience are dying to know, too.The title \"The Mysteries of Pittsburgh\" must refer to the characters themselves, because that's what they are. They are all facades, one-dimensional stand-ins for actual people. The film never lets us in. We never know what makes any of them tick. We see them do lots of things, but we don't know why. And the absence of \"why\" is one of the worst things a movie can have. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-973e810eb8874e8cb1c9d717b3847f36", "input": "Review: Midnight Cowboy made a big fuss when it was released in 1969, drawing an X rating. By today's standards, it would be hard pressed to pull an R rating. Jon Voight, who has been better, is competent in his role as Joe Buck, an out of town hick wanting to make it big with the ladies in New York City. He meets a seedy street hustler named Ratso Rizzo, who tries to befriend Buck for his own purposes. The two eventually forge a bond that is both touching and pathetic. As Ratso, Dustin Hoffman simply shines. Hoffman has often been brilliant, but never more so than in this portrayal. He is so into character that all else around him pales in comparison. Losing the Academy Award to John Wayne is one of the most ridiculous decisions ever made by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Director Schlessinger has a deft hand with his production, but this film has a grungy underbelly that leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the viewer. Worth seeing for Hoffman's performance alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0ddbc1079a544c8a69dd418cdfec340", "input": "Review: I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in \"Love Story\" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d0a08eb55ad4a34b0c322b69bc910b4", "input": "Review: A woman left alone after the death of her husband finds herself attracted to her son's friend and handy man. In a slightly twisted story, the woman begins sleeping with the handy man in an effort to revive herself. The twisted part? The handy man is also her daughter's on and off love interest.As if this wasn't strange enough, the mother manages to fall for this man and when her daughter finds out, she blames not only her dysfunctional relationship but also her messed up life on her poor mother.Though you may think badly of this woman, the truth is movie manages to portray her in a positive light. Beautifully played by Anne Reid, this character has dimension and portrays great emotion.A truly brilliant performance and an enjoyable film.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7a0150137f04994b96cc8075e8354e3", "input": "Review: (A possible spoiler or two) \"Soul Survivors\" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch. I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a43eaa492774752a005092f243243ed", "input": "Review: So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.Boy, was I wrong.End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-883ceed938f54880b5d96d80c0937363", "input": "Review: Until I saw this special on HBO, I had never heard of Eddie Izzard. I sure am glad that I have now! He is one of the funniest comedians I have ever seen! Rarely has a comedian immersed himself so completely in his craft then Eddie. I could not stop laughing for the entire show. If you like to laugh you HAVE to see this special! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-798af9e549384e3ea487034084699233", "input": "Review: One of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill.Woeful down market attempt to cash in on the Death Wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging Bronson. Acting is terrible, sets are cheap, the baddies are, well, bad. Identification with any of the characters is unlikely.Only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity, a smattering of which is full frontal. Other than that, you can leave it... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8fbf2bc4dcb453cbf8e0aa5d987dd42", "input": "Review: Omen IV (1991) was a bad made-for-T.V. movie. Since the 80's were over, I guess the executives were experimenting in meth (the drug of choice during the 90's) because there is no other reason to explain this travesty. Why did they even bother making this? A t.v. movie? What were they mulling over when this one came up on the idea board? Did they even think for a second that this movie would catch on as. Perhaps they thought it could make it as a series? We'll never know. But I know one thing. This movie was the major reason why I never bought the Omen trilogy. They should have knocked off a couple of bucks instead of putting out this \"extra\" disc.Omen IV is basically a average American family remake of the first film. Instead of a snot nosed punk kid, we get the spooky girl who's a total brat to everyone around her. If the family had stronger parenting skills, then none of the demonic events that have transpired in the past films would have never occurred. These parents need to put their foot down and do some real discipline! Not recommended, best to avoid at all cost! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa147621f12e4dcc835f618b3b6058e6", "input": "Review: Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a \"genetic breakthrough\" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening \"Primal Park\", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a9156199f7b400a8b7313e4c2e61947", "input": "Review: ***Might not consider this having a spoiler, but I'd rather be cautious than careless*** I never saw this movie when I was little. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it with my three year old daughter. I can watch it over and over again.For the little acting Ilene Woods did in her lifetime, she was a wonderful voice for Cinderella; very appealing; very believable. The music really fit the movie perfectly. The acting was great; loved the mice!! You really \"hated\" Lady Tremain and the step-sisters; they were just awful. The cartoonists depicted the spoiled behavior very well.This is a wonderful movie, especially if you are into love stories. My daughter has seen the movie about 25 times and still gets excited at the end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-440dfe968fb244eab07bca7899a65214", "input": "Review: It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c6ea205514e4ee1a1db8667d3a0ca98", "input": "Review: Zane and Beringer will keep you on the edge of your seats. I don't typically go for military/war movies, but this was worth my time.It was serious, but it was also humorous. Beringer's character proved to be heroic and honest. No matter what, you know that he's got your back.Zane's character developed throughout the film. He wasn't just a suit, he definitely proved that he could be a hero and handle a gun.The ending through me a little though. It didn't really go with the action throughout the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, nonetheless.It's worth checking out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54ed422700874efdaff67450178bb349", "input": "Review: . . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of \"10.\" After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8db01a1010d4613b0ee5e0c9004ae73", "input": "Review: The third installment of the \"Carnosaur\" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the \"Carnosaur\" and \"Xtro\" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an \"Alien\" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the \"Xtro\" franchise, all the \"Carnosaur\" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the \"sequels,\" I guess. Obviously \"Carnosaur\" and \"Xtro\" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fceeac8b5f53406782e9c804f2f44662", "input": "Review: As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-501cc1f2d3cd45af8edbcdeab6cf8539", "input": "Review: In 1990 Brad Pitt and Juiliette Lewis did a TV Too Young To Die where both played the almost the same kind of parts that they do in Kalifornia. I have no doubt that is what led to their casting in this big screen film.Kalifornia finds aspiring writer David Duchovny and his girl friend, art photographer Michelle Forbes on a rocky relationship of sorts due to Duchovny's obsession with writing a book and getting in the minds and souls of serial killers. In fact he's got a most unusual odyssey planned, he wants to go cross country and visit the sites of several famous serial killers. But he and Forbes are flat broke.Fate intervenes in more ways than financial with the arrival of Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis a pair of strange southern types who agree to split the cost of gas on this cross country trip. It turns out Pitt is a serial killer himself and he decides to do a little research on his own, delving into the mind of someone who is fascinated with amorality.Kalifornia is not the type of film I usually go for, but in fact the acting ability and charisma of Brad Pitt make it work to a large degree. Pitt is the walking definition of an inbred Gothic refugee from Deliverance. But better than he is is Juliette Lewis who once again is playing these low self esteem types which she seems to do well. Watch her scene with Forbes as she does her hair and Lewis describes her sad and pathetic life. Lewis's dialog and Forbes's reactions ought to be shown in acting classes around the country.For those who like their slasher flicks, they don't come better than Kalifornia. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bc3ed2e949a40b1b04afa7497205f76", "input": "Review: Eleven different Film Makers from different parts of the world are assembled in this film to present their views and ideas about the WTC attack. This is one of the best effort you will see in any Film. Films like this are rarely made and appreciated. This film tries to touch every possible core of WTC. Here are some of the most important stories from the film that makes this film so unique.There is the story from Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) where somewhere in Iran people are preparing for the attacks from America. There a teacher is trying to educate her students by informing them about Innocent People being killed in WTC massacre. Then comes a story from Youssef Chahine (Egypt) where a Film Maker comes across face-to-face conversation with a Dead Soldier in the WTC attack and a Dead Hard Core Terrorist who was involved in WTC attack. Then we see a story from Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso) where a group of Five Innocent children's sees Osama Bin Laden and plans to kidnap him and win the reward money from America. Then we see the story from Alejandro Gozalez Inarritu (Mexico) where you see a Black Screen and slowly you see the real footage of WTC buildings coming down. And the people who are stuck in the building are jumping out of it to save their lives. The other most important story is from Mira Nair (India) where a mother is struggling to get respect for her Dead Son whose name is falsely trapped in WTC massacre! After September 11 attack, Our heart beat automatically starts pumping if we hear two names anywhere in the world.. First is World Trade Centre and the second is Osama! This film totally changes our perception and makes a strong point by claiming something more to it.I will definitely recommend this movie to everyone who loves to have such kinds of Home DVD Collection. Definitely worth every penny you spend. But please don't expect anything more apart from Films in this DVD. There is of course Filmographies of the Film Makers but No Extra Features. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b89375652b1d4d8c9615961bdaff8b28", "input": "Review: Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe0d287ed46d49fd9d04a69e7f1ab609", "input": "Review: Once again Jet Li brings his charismatic presence to the movie screen in the film Black Mask. In this film Li plays Tsui, an escapee from a super soldier program who seeks to regain the humanity that the program had taken away from him. To do this Tsui decides to become a librarian in order to live a normal and peaceful life, but fate demands that he clean up problems from his past before he can continue to seek peace. Other members of the super soldier program had escaped at the same time as Tsui, but they want to get even with the world rather than find inner peace. Thus Tsui becomes the only thing that can prevent his former team mates from releasing information that could cost many innocent people their lives. This film screams across the screen at a frantic pace and never lets its audience go. The martial arts is amazing, but because it uses wires it may not be appreciated as much as it deserves by American audiences. If you like action movies that have an interesting story and demand good acting performances because they deal with psychological as well as physical conflicts, then Black Mask is for you. I am glad to see that some of Jet Li's movies are finally getting main stream release in the United States and look forward to seeing how the changes that that release will require (things like dubbing and soundtrack) will affect the film. This is one of Li's best films, go out and see it on May 14 when it is released in America. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e7f8727232540148d1acac59eb9979e", "input": "Review: Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dfb3fc82d3c34957b9e8a9b2b572349d", "input": "Review: I'm sure this was one of those \"WOAH!\" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d7d47a47133429488ba2c8b47f49676", "input": "Review: This was a blind buy used DVD. It totally killed a nice buzz I had going when I hit play.It's bubble-headed comedy, but it's um. squalid. The plot is ZANY!, but the characters do things to each other that are so petty and disturbed and conveniently contrived I ultimately found it depressing to watch.Maybe the box lead me to expect something more than an uneven, goofy caper film. (I know, I know, the quotes on the box & the Academy Award nomination mean nothing.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-61d4bc68bb7d4c25bb56597bf0c3d61a", "input": "Review: Falls into the film category of \"Way too ridiculous in the dialogue and execution departments to be taken seriously\". Whereas Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth or My Boyfriend's Back know they are bad, Scarecrows doesn't. Evil Dead set such a high standard for the comedic horror on a budget genre, that Scarecrows is simply out of place. Suspicions of inexperience are immediately at play as there are no hints of noise or vibration in the hull and cockpit of an airborne plane. The repeated display of a picture of 3 men just screams for a story arc, but nothing comes. Although the men are obviously the scarecrows, there is no explanation.Knowing this film is too serious for it's own good may produce some grins. I don't recall if Joe Bob Briggs ever previewed Scarecrows, but I believe that he wouldn't stoop this low. However, with an IMDb rating of over 6, there are many people that disagree. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-96523f88a00047c585b1e7f9024edf05", "input": "Review: I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca27d4b7a1a549acad7f1cbc8aa6cf1a", "input": "Review: I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.I was aware of the \"Emma Peel\" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1e675f8c72e42bdab18e4377fec41d5", "input": "Review: MY EYES! IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE ME UNSEE THIS MOVIE! what drugs are you people on! this could very well be the worst movie ever! i felt like i was on a bad acid trip the whole time, i need to call a therapist to help me deal with the trauma of this epic disaster. From start to finish glow ropes is an unholy masterpiece of satanic cinema. when i thought to watch this movie with my Jewish best friend and his family we thought \"oh hey, this may be funny! it will probably be bad but still a little funny\" how wrong we were, we were not prepared for how awful this movie could be. All of my friends lined up for lobotomies as soon as the film was over, and during the course of the movie, one of my friends attempted to hang himself with his belt while another tried to slit his wrists with a wooden spoon. I wish I had watched the video from The Ring instead, that way the pain and suffering would be over in only seven short days. For all who wish to see this movie, YOU ARE NOT PREPARED! you may think you are some sort of \"tough guy\" by renting this but this movie will break you, push you to the ground and urinate on you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-559d39075b16476fa71a9663d503ed11", "input": "Review: ***One Out of Ten Stars*** Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fddbe5f868c24c13bb17910c67aa946f", "input": "Review: This is a haunting, powerful Italian adaptation of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice directed by the great Luchino Visconti. What is so interesting about the film is that in every way it transcends it's source material to become something bolder and more original (interestingly Camus also credits Cain's novel as the key inspiration for his landmark novel The Stranger). The film has a greater power and intensity than the novel because Visconti is able to create the filmic equivalent of Cain's narrative structure but offer a more complex exploration of gender. Cain's very American novel is also uncritically fascinated with the construction of whiteness (the lead character Cora is obsessively afraid she will be identified as a Mexican and embarrassed that she married a Greek immigrant), which is not relevant to the Italian rural context that Visconti is working in. This allows the class antagonisms to take center stage and dance among the embers of the passionate, doomed love affair of the two main characters. This film is a complex, suspenseful, rewarding experience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-26c77432926640ceb9bca87044e555ff", "input": "Review: I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing \"happy ending\" slapped onto the end.All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The \"happy ending\" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - \"The End\". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca16c6b12a244964b497b97e3036f3cf", "input": "Review: \"The Return of Chandu\" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl. The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains. Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better. It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-508e4a6b09354b6fa7f594572037509c", "input": "Review: In recent times I have been subjected to both this movie and \"King Arthur\", on DVDs chosen by others for an evening's \"entertainment\" and together they achieve nothing more than bearing out a growing notion I have that the modern movie-watching public totally lacks discrimination, and is content as long as they get \"action\". Both movies were utter rubbish.Whatever happened to character development? Whatever happened to meaningful dialogue? Whatever happened to ACTING? And, when watching something that vaguely purports to be \"historical\", whatever happened to attempting to capture some measure of accuracy, some realistic idea of the \"political map\" of the time, even some slight flavour of the era, especially in its social attitudes. Why do they all have to display the value set of 21st century America? I have read on the message boards of disclaimers that \"little was known\" of the dark ages. Not so. Considerable amounts are known, with much learned scholarship on the era, but these jokers simply couldn't be bothered to do any homework.I only wish I could vote 0/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc01b9e6c35349c988061126ce39e1b6", "input": "Review: This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage (…)Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes… do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc5d0b73d1964c619ad99035736f4aa6", "input": "Review: SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ff2d8c3596f42578e2092c8a94b5a9f", "input": "Review: The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19d73bcc8b6e40bb88dca56c6d2e9dc1", "input": "Review: I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.Highly recommended series, i want more!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4bf163774994267859b2473e29d801f", "input": "Review: I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4fb2c6c9be504daf81a31c67919eccfb", "input": "Review: Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever . You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c20e3ed1d744f4a874c79d9ef980ada", "input": "Review: I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eea69728101343ce8e8622f66635f737", "input": "Review: This movie is just great. It's entertaining from beginning to the end, you're always gonna be at the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie. In my opinion this movie is highly underrated by the critics.Sly suits perfectly into the role of the well trained mountain-rescue guy Gabe Walker. Together with him Michael Rooker makes a great appearance as Hal Tucker. And then, John Lithgow, one of the best performances I've seen of him as a villain.And the fact that 75% of the movie takes place at a mountain with a whole lot of bad guys on it makes way for a lot of action! Brilliant movie! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc448bb4c16547229ed34c24149bb448", "input": "Review: It takes a little while to get used to Nick Nolte's Nebraskan locutions before we can easily accept him as a famous intercontinental playwright. Once you get past the bar, it turns into a fascinating story of a man who loses everything while trying to do good.Nolte, an American, moves to Germany, marries a famous actress, and is a satisfied success in every respect until war is about to break out. He's visited by a jovial American, John Goodman, who persuades him to accept a post as an anti-Semitic radio broadcaster for the Nazis. Nolte has no politics but thinks it's a challenge to write a role that's almost impossible and then play it himself. Another American secret agent will modify Nolte's radio scripts -- inserting a cough here, a sneeze there -- that will serve as a code for the transmission of intelligence to the Allies. There's a catch, though. Nobody will know about Nolte's real role as an American agent except Goodman, Donovan, and Roosevelt himself. If he's ever uncovered, he'll be refused recognition by the Americans.Nolte plunges ahead and his vicious broadcasts are wildly popular in Germany. His adored wife, Sheryl Lee, knows nothing of what's going on, nor does she care. Nolte and Lee live in what he repeatedly refers to as \"a nation of two.\" The war ends and the trouble begins. He's captured by Americans who are bitter because of his betrayal. They beat him and leave him in the mud. He's rescued by Goodman, his \"fairy godmother\", who sends him to an anonymous existence in Greenwich Village and sends him a little cash now and then.By 1960, he manages to cultivate a friendship with his neighbor, the painter Alan Arkin, who has also lost his family and claims the two now belong to a secret brotherhood. But his location and his identity somehow leak out and he is more or less adopted by a group of ancient Aryan racists -- led by a dentist and a priest. His house front and mailbox are painted with swastikas and accusations. He's beaten senseless by an ex-GI. But -- miraculously -- his beloved wife is returned to him by the ancient Aryans. Another catch: it turns out later that it's not his wife, but rather her younger sister who has loved him since adolescence.The ending has him typing his memoirs in an Israeli jail in 1967 before his trial for crimes against humanity. It's not a happy ending.Nolte can talk with, but not see, the occupant of the cell above his in jail. It's Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann seems pleasant enough. He advises Nolte that it's a bad habit to type for fifteen straight hours. \"It's important to relax. You must learn to relax.\" Nolte laughs out loud and shouts, \"That's how I GOT here.\" The film is filled with such ironies. At one point in their relaxed conversations, Arkin tells him that \"in spite of everything I still think people are good at heart.\" I don't know if the movie was a commercial success but if it wasn't, that's the sort of thing that might have torpedoed it for a younger audience of theater-goers who may never have heard of Anne Frank let alone that supposedly final statement in her diary.The fact is that it's a movie for adults, and patient adults at that. The story moves slowly, there's very little violence, no car chases, no shootings, and people don't seem subject to manic speech pressure. A lot of it will probably slip past viewers who don't open themselves to its deliberate approach. Nolte refers to the war-time relationship between him and his wife as \"a nation of two.\" This is a pretty compact phrase. No doubt anyone could come up with a glib definition but it takes a little concentration to grasp its emotional import.It's a story of a man who loses everything -- his ability to write, his identity, his wife (twice), his sole friend, his country, his self respect. At one point he stops walking along a crowded New York street and simply stands there until after dark, when he is moved along by a curious cop. The reason he stopped is that he simply has no place to go. What Vonnegut is describing is far more than depression. I don't mean to sound condescending but it's the sort of feeling that's hard to understand in your youth. Adolescents might like to THINK they know what's holding Nolte in that one spot, but it really requires maturity and the quickened sense of finiteness that only maturity can bring.Remember Robert Frost's line about home being the place that when you go there they have to take you in? Well no place will take Nolte in. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0480fdffc55a43fc9342b7decbfbe4e1", "input": "Review: The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great. I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie. Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot. And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya. A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4399daddb9094d27878e202b6a924981", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a38978e3ec94ca1aa258dcf5cde64b3", "input": "Review: This excellent drama had me in suspense the whole time. I could not take my eyes off the screen for one second because every word kept connecting the pieces to this puzzling murder. This movie really touched me because it showed how sad and hard life can be. I really did cry in the end (which I don't want to give away!) It also let me realize how cruel and sickening people can be when it comes to murder. The cast was also very good. The only bad cast member was the actress who played Anne Marie. The actress did a great job, but the director didn't. I say this because he found someone who didn't look a single bit like Anne Marie Fahey herself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2878b36437214bf0890626f8cda70759", "input": "Review: Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was \"tricked\" into falling in love with Gillian? As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b8dac5f82f5b424e8ae7db2cff0a8ad3", "input": "Review: This film takes you to another time when there was a different pace to everyday life. We get an idea how families had to deal with the war and how quickly we sent young men off to fight. A very touching look at the past and a reminder that casualties of war don't just happen on the front.Luckily many of us have never had to go through what our great-grandparents, grandparents or parents went through during a war. This film, I think, is a small thank you. Peter Outerbridge looks amazingly like a young Peter O'Toole and Russell Crowe is absolutely charming and as Australian as he can be. It's definitely worth listening to him recite \"High Flight\" and makes me wonder what he might accomplish with Shakespeare. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6f9d364bda24b48befaa2e532c1f775", "input": "Review: I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? 2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is \"SOOOO in love with Lisa,\" I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.HOWEVER.This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-135193903cf04b9da580459e49cd952e", "input": "Review: My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3949a17491e54f1facb1c8f465d9b0d0", "input": "Review: And I gave it a high 7.....Why? Because it bloody well rocked. At the time when there were so many OTHER shows on that were tied to toys/games this show was unique in that it had overlapping stories. As others have said here it was ahead of its time. Sadly this is why the show was doomed. They have released 4 DVDs with 16 episodes of the series so far. I am hoping that more come out. How does this compare watching it now 20 years after it first came out.. I don't know I still like it despite the sometimes clunky animation, and that IMHO is it's only flaw. The writing was almost top notch and way ahead of the competition........ I do hope for more DVDs or even a set of all the episodes in proper order... The DVDs are good but I don't think the stories are in their proper order, but despite this the show rocked. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9cb7bacc5684e2aa4e40611829b2117", "input": "Review: This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, \"Double Indemnity,\" is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new \"Double Indemnity\" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.The look of Jack Smight's take on \"Double Indemnity\" is more \"Dynasty\" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 \"Double Indemnity\" should be titled \"10% Indemnity,\" because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-063550fd6af04758ab85d8b520e47c05", "input": "Review: I've watched this movie a second time to try to figure out why it wasn't as successful (commercially or artistically) as it should have been, and discovered considerable artistic merit--which may ultimately have been its commercial undoing.First of all, this movie attempts \"serious\" science-fiction, social commentary, more than action-adventure. There is action in it, but that's not really what it's about. If you focus on that, you'll end up with (as others have noted) a bad \"Aliens\" clone. But, again, that's not what it's about.The movie is really about Todd's (Kurt Russell) transformation from human to near-machine and back to human (mostly *back*). But because it's not trying to give you a typically glib Hollywood style answer, Kurt Russell must make this transformation without speaking, and largely without broad expressions. And he really does a wonderful job--it can take two viewings to appreciate it.The surrounding \"social logic\" is flawed and it's never adequately explained whether Todd's ability to hold his own against an army of supposedly superior troops comes from his experience on the battlefield or his newfound human-ness or what, but the movie still makes a marvellous showcase for Russell's (easy to underestimate) talent. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68a5d25a7a0f417ea191c9f203c9fc1c", "input": "Review: This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c9a523ebdb94c0288e58a83c676f71e", "input": "Review: This was my favourite film as a child, and I have been in the stage production a few times so it will always remain my favourite muscical and I doubt anybody could ever re-make the story of Oliver Twist on screen, any better than this one did.My all-time favourite ''bad guy'' has to be Oliver Reed as Bill Sikes. Not only did he scare the life out of my when I watched it as a 6 year old, but now as a woman I can empathize more with Nancys character, the bar maid/prostitute who helps Oliver get the life he deserves.Jack Wilde as the artful dodger, was fantastic, and I don't think anybody could ever out-do him, as the street-pocket picker, and best friend of Fagin. The music is fantastic, especially Fagin's numbers, I'm also quite thankful they didn't give Bill Sikes a musical number, it wouldn't of worked with him being such a sinister character.I think Carol Reed did an excellent job of Nancy's sticky ending, keeping it a G rated movie by disguising her beating, but giving enough away to show the violence of Bill towards her. This movie is both charming, and charismatic as a musical sing-along, as well as being a moving drama that follows a young boy as he tries to find where he belongs in life. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d425f954d9b74a4087e28f5bd90349a6", "input": "Review: This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3e087dc8cc049edaf181e9dcadf29c5", "input": "Review: One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.A great look at life in the late 40's. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0f18da981b64d1bb549ac96cb257c09", "input": "Review: This insipid mini operetta featuring a Eddy-McDonald prototype in a Valentino scenario is so bad it becomes an endurance exercise after five minutes. It's silly from the get go as this brevity opens two military men discussing the lack of manliness in the son of one of the officers. In under a minute he is packed off to Morrocco where he lives a double life as the Red Shadow; the leader of an Arab tribe that would rather sing than fight.Alexander Gray and Bernice Clare possess fine light opera voices (with little acting ability) and there's a decent bass in there as well but the acting is so haphazard scenes so ill prepared you get the feeling they are making things up as they go along.This two reeler was part of a larger stage production that lists six writers. With more room to spoof and warble the show may have had some entertainment values but this rushed quickie is little more than an insult to an audience waiting for the feature presentation. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a7c4b2bcd9948268c974352449bd078", "input": "Review: Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-248470a48dda42a78142fa347a443f05", "input": "Review: Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed \"Butch\" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from \"The Wizard of Oz\" are played here in instrumental versions: \"We're off to see the Wizard\" and \"Somewhere over the rainbow\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa71af4da75f4bd0a0cf38b553732537", "input": "Review: Possibly the best movie ever created in the history of Jeffrey Combs career, and one that should be looked upon by all talent in Hollywood for his versatility, charisma, and uniqueness he brings through his characters and his knowledge of acting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29b3b7c421214eea8e0d73a84c1e132b", "input": "Review: Brand Hauser (John Cusack) is an assassin for the CIA. He is ordered to go to the country of Turaquistan, a nation that the United States has \"liberated\", and kill a businessman named Omar Shariff. This is because the American conglomerate, Tamerlane, that is putting the country \"back together\" will not stand for Shariff, an oil man from a neighboring state, laying down his own pipeline through war-torn Turquistan. But, once there, Brand runs into difficulties. One, he meets a determined journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei) who wants to tell the American public the \"true\" story of the region's conflict...and of Tamerlane. But, Brand is aghast to realize that Natalie's pretty face and sharp mind instantly and unconsciously compels him to lose focus on his mission. Also, his cover as a trade show host forces him to meet the country's pop-singing princess, Yonica (Hillary Duff), who will be getting married at the convention center. She is a young diva whose wedding arrangements also turn Brand's attention away from the coming assassination. With other inept underlings and complications, will Brand be able to carry out his mission, for the satisfaction of Tamerlane's BIG boss, the former vice-president (Dan Ackroyd)? Good for you, John Cusack, to make this film, even though it doesn't quite hold together. Shot in Serbia, it is a worthy look at what present-day Iraq must be like, a country turned upside-down. In a stroke a brilliance, the green zone here is called \"The Emerald City\" and aptly so, for this Oz-like neighborhood attempts to keep out the ravages of war going on elsewhere in the metropolis. The cast is very fine, with Cusack doing a nice job and Tomei, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Ackroyd and others backing him up in style. Duff, especially, does a great turn as the heavily-accented, heavily made-up, potty-mouthed singer. The recreation of war-riddled Baghdad is so real that it hurts while the costumes and other production values are top-notch. As for the script, it isn't always cohesive but it certainly has some tremendous dialogue and scenes. For example, a young Turaqui boy offers to show Brand an enemy hideout, in exchange for money and candy. Brand produces the cash but, because he has no candy, the boy burns his vehicle anyway. Brilliant! Then, also, the direction is not a total success but doesn't lag very often. No, if you have conservative leanings, you probably won't like this film one bit. But, if you have an open mind and want to see a satirical view of the \"war on terrorism\", this is quite a good show. Therefore, do make an effort to view it, as you will be supporting those filmmakers who choose to make movies far away from those old studio \"formulas\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8eb610fb48f244f09968d3f1e2371bc8", "input": "Review: ...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. \"Saving Grace,\" on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c484ede330a5411eaad95499f3528450", "input": "Review: I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af10467b715f42f5ada3d8e4ad08dcfd", "input": "Review: Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though. The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination. While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-81ef5bfe551a4925bb902bddf4bb4695", "input": "Review: Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccd49abe31d34eedb4239956f41e43cd", "input": "Review: I've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.Boy, was I wrong.I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f59107441da4c7383404b646ab32e36", "input": "Review: I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-36d9bf07588e4d53b0627ce6cca62c30", "input": "Review: Some gorehound-friends recommended \"Live Feed\" to me, and basically I can't really complain as the film certainly does deliver copious amounts of gross smut and buckets full of sleaze, but it is of course not a very good film. More than obviously cashing in on the latest trend in horror cinema, the so-called Torture Porn, Ryan Nicholson tries to surpass every other film in this sub genre (and that includes the role models \"Hostel\" and \"Saw\") with its sick & twisted make-up effects and thoroughly depraved shots of naked co-eds tried up, suffering and begging for their lives. There's no actual plot to describe. Five utterly brainless twenty-something friends take a trip to Asia. One of them has Asian roots, but other than that I don't really know why they opted to travel there instead of to Cancun. They're clearly not interested in the continents culture and even cause a hectic scene when they witness a local butchering a cute puppy dog on the market. The quintet subsequently dives into the lurid night life and one of them accidentally insults the leader of a criminal clan. A simply apology clearly doesn't suffice, as the gangster follow them into an adult theater and gradually subject all of them to vicious torture. One girl has her breast impaled and another poor wench even has a poisonous snake shoved down her throat; yikes. \"Live Feed\" is surprisingly boring despite of all the bloodshed and the amateurish production values are quite difficult to overlook, even if you're used to watching independent fan-boy trash cinema like this. The fat bloke depicted on the cover, an oriental S&M executioner, is admittedly quite cool and he's also the most talented of the whole bunch, because he at least keeps his mouth shut the entire time. I wouldn't exactly recommend this pile of filth, but hey, if you like loud & hideous metal music, nauseating torture footage and dim-witted losers, go right ahead and watch! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3ca321498051452f80f1932d39743de2", "input": "Review: this movie is, despite its \"independent\" status, a stupid hollywood version of a nauseating mother-daughter relationship. it wasnt that bad at first, but somewhere during the course of the movie--around the time that the daughter goes out with that guy, i think--it turns into a cheesey mother-daughter bonding movie. im sorry, but i dont know of any mothers who have that kind of relationship with their daughter...its probably better that way, though. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e88a04aa09024da28140b89704d9ad58", "input": "Review: Academy Award winner Robert Redford (Best Director. Ordinary People 1980) captures the majesty of the Montana wilderness and the strength of the American family in this acclaimed adaptation of Norman Macleans classic memoir.Craig Sheffer stars as the young Norman, and Brad Pitt stars as his brother Paul, an irresistible daredevil driven to challenge the world.Growing up, both boys rebel against their stern Minister father (Tom Skerritt).While Norman channels his rebellion into writing, Paul descends a slippery path to self-destruction.Also starring Emily LLoyd as wild-hearted Jessie Burns.The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematopghaphy in 1993. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-63bd579ad6174cf783dd475bb916046f", "input": "Review: To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. \"Better\" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb5986f72e98459ab5cee7bad70817a3", "input": "Review: The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled \"Gorilla Warfare\" and number eleven is called \"The Gorilla\". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.Historicaly interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7fb1fd7da334df284933bc43dae572b", "input": "Review: not your typical vamp story, not bram stoker or anne rice here. a truly original vampyre story. these vampyres are genetic mutants who the sunlight don't bother. they are pure evil to. the film is not perfect. many of the actors are clearly amateurs. the two leads who play van helsing and rally the vampyre chick are pretty good though. the film is intensely violent which may disturb some people. also it is loaded with scientific detail that many will find hard to understand and may get bored with. i was sold on the clever storyline and the couple good performances. no telling how successful this film could be if they had a bigger budget and it got mass distribution Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-69bad54b3b1e41369fa89138dbb73d9c", "input": "Review: What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4e5f8de5de94c5a9e57e4d36f6677bd", "input": "Review: Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-efe6db11a6a94080a5a1aa6516538ce5", "input": "Review: It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for \"film buffs\" especially interested in the silent to sound transition Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e1f109f27e3f4032b3fc03984c85e2f0", "input": "Review: \"The Groove Tube\" was initially shown on video, in the first \"video theaters\" here in Boston. In one room, there were TV monitors on high stands, with old movie theater seats, in small groups facing the monitors. There were old refrigerators stocked with Pepsi, and baskets of York Peppermint Patties. In a second, smaller room, there were no seats, just large pillows. That was the 'smoking' room, i.e., people got high in there. That act only added to the hilarity of the video.I was a 'frequent viewer'; the scenes I liked most and remember to this day are: Koko The Clown, The Kramp Family Kitchen (Kramp Easy-Lube Shortening), Safety Sam/ VD PSA, the Chevy Chase hitchhiker w/ nude runs through the woods, the Finger Ballet on what was eventually revealed to be the nude body of a woman. The last item was very reminiscent of the late, incredible Ernie Kovacs. Now, I've lost a lot of readers that are under 48 (\"who is Ernie Kovacs??\") but trust me, it's funny stuff.One reason I was a 'frequent viewer' was that I, and my friends, would bring other \"Groove Tube\" virgins to see it. We would sit and slyly watch the faces of the 'virgins' as the \"Safety Sam\" PSA would play. As the camera slowly zooms in on \"Sam\", we would wait for that \"OH!\" of recognition on the 'virgin's' face. Each time was more hilarious than the last. And then that 'virgin' would then bring a friend to see the show, repeating what we had done. To get this joke, you must watch the video.Yes, some of it is dated, but most plays, film, television, and now videos are. Just look at any video made in the 1980's.I did see \"The Groove Tube\" in a theater as a film, a grainy transfer from the original video. It had been cut, and was missing some of the original high-point scenes.The first \"Saturday Night Live\" show, featuring Chevy Chase, elicited instant remarks of, \"that's the guy from \"The Groove Tube\" \", so it was a precursor for Chevy.I can't look at a can of shortening without hearing the voice-over, \"coat your hands with a generous amount of Kramp Easy-Lube shortening...\" and thinking of the \"Kramp Holiday Loaf\" recipe. Always gets me laughing in the Baking Needs aisle in the grocery store.The early 70's were parlous times; \"The Groove Tube\" was fresh, new, and really 'got' the humor of the times. It offered a 'hip generation', humor that wasn't available in any other format/medium. MJH Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc43a161613d40a08fbcd029a3c087dc", "input": "Review: The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33ce633e474e48a8b31545e702494732", "input": "Review: The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said \"Uh oh, this is running too long,\" and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5399fe46535f4beaa9c78a1455dd8c80", "input": "Review: This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, \"yes\" or \"no\" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e436b10ca9747b2a4b110e27ffdce85", "input": "Review: The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great. I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie. Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot. And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya. A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d7e4728ebd34dbaad18c3ec99729cc7", "input": "Review: I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77974ff539fc4db4813f4715d7749002", "input": "Review: Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, \"SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!\" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then \"redeeming\" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly \"true\" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67ed3e9c5096454f88021832097c6896", "input": "Review: ba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-75d63dcb3d714412a75d1c3ac7fd8d96", "input": "Review: Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out \"he's lost his gun!\" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.If anyone else out there also saw \"Sleepy Hollow\", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In \"Sleepy Hollow\", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. \"Planet of the Apes\" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like \"Total Recall\" or \"Tango and Cash\" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other \"big\" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in \"Mars Attacks\" or \"Beetlejuice\") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6573fe76e2a444b4898e0adb01fa1469", "input": "Review: There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7beaeee4ae947fe820dc9e0cebf5377", "input": "Review: Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-548f13ddd7164e598b16bdf4316cc04c", "input": "Review: basically, i like Verhoeven film because in his film, i enjoy a brilliant pscychosexual story that i have seen before in \"Basic Instinct\".it is really a wonderful thriller i enjoyed very much.so it is obviously for me to watch this another Verhoeven movie.well, it is his previous direction before his block buster hit \"Basic Instinct\" and for that i was very much curious to watch that movie and yeah, the movie has fulfilled my hope and expectation.this movie \"The Fourth Man\" is a brilliant pscychosexual drama which is a lit bit complex for some audiences. the story of this movie is about a gay writer named \"Reve\"(Krabbe), an alcoholic person who is lives by his own moral values and sees many visions that may warn him from a future accident.after the end of his lecture, he introduce a seductive woman named \"Christine\", who has a mysterious past she doesn't want to reveal.Reve do sex with her at her house as she is a boy.next morning, he watch her sexy, macho boyfriend's picture on her table, the person he met at the station.he is curious to meet him and tell Christine to invite him to her house.that's it. i don't want to reveal the entire story because it is a Verhoeven movie and the end of the film is really surprising!especially, i like the character \"Reve\" which is brilliantly played by \"Krabbe\".i basically like his acting because as a gay person i am purely identified with his character and yeah i like his charming face.i would like thanks Mr.Verhoeven to make such a black comedy.i rate this movie: 10 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72772f511861476c9de77d0a456da358", "input": "Review: This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc0689f55a544f62ae67f4fc66b1310a", "input": "Review: Definitely one of the lesser of the Astaire/Rogers musicals. It's just very poorly plotted and paced. It only runs a few minutes longer than Swing Time, for example, but it feels a heck of a lot longer. This is partly due to the secondary romance between Randolph Scott and Harriet Hilliard. Scott is rarely ever interesting. I like Hilliard. She's sweet, and I love at least one of her songs, \"But Where Are You?\" (\"Get Thee Behind Me Satan\", her other number, is a weak leftover from Top Hat, thankfully cut from that masterpiece). Follow the Fleet would actually be a bad film if not for at least three brilliant dance sequences between Astaire and Rogers. The dancing contest vies for the top spot of any of their numbers. The dance is just fantastic. \"I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket\" presents the two rehearsing a dance that they don't quite have perfected yet. Its imperfections make it all the more perfect. And \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is easily one of Irving Berlin's best songs. So the film is well worth watching for its great moments. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9205490e46d044679b9f48cf339d5f58", "input": "Review: If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6332ba35894a4588ac2a5842194883c5", "input": "Review: I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking \"Buster, how could you?!\". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e293fe3007c6429e9e4430e3dfec0c95", "input": "Review: Hail Bollywood and men Directors !Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - \"Sure artificial insemination\" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - \"Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aedc2745d680419791bb4375f1d1892f", "input": "Review: I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1246ed422ec42a9bd0cc9323813f22d", "input": "Review: That 70s Show is the best TV show ever, period. It's up there with the Andy Griffen Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Simpsons in my book. That 70s Show continued on for 8 seasons, all of which focus around a group of teenagers/young adults dealing with relationships, separating from their parents, and their overall futures.The two main characters, Eric and Donna, are two teenagers living next door to each other. They have been living next door to each other for most of their lives, and just begin to feel more feelings for each other at the beginning of the first season. A large amount of the show revolves around how their relationship is working.Two other characters, Red and Kitty, are Eric's parents. Red was in the service, so he really pushes Eric around. Kitty is just the opposite. Even though she drinks heavily, she treats Eric and his friends with a lot of care. Bob, their neighbor, is obviously Donna's Dad. Bob giggles around with several different women throughout the coarse of the show's story. Bob also annoys Red to his full extent.The remaining character, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie, are Eric's friends. They also play a major role in the show's story.Well, the First Season is great. This is when the characters are beginning to feel new things for each other. The First Season is original, funny, and enjoyable.The Second Season is good, although it isn't as good as the first. It is a basic continuation of the First. Eric and Donna are together, and everything is working out great.The Third Season is my favorite. It went back and captured the First Season feel and humor. I also think that the character chemistry improved a bunch, making the show all that more fun to watch.The Fourth Season isn't near as good. Eric and Donna Arne't together in this one, making the show slightly less pleasurable. It is still funny, although I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons.The Fifth Season is the last season I enjoyed all the way through. It is the gang's Senior Year, so that really helps with the story. The Fifth Season also had the best ending out of all the seasons.The Sixth Season is good for the most part. It is extremely funny, although it doesn't capture the feel that the other seasons did. The gang is out of High School, so I believe that it didn't hit the teen feel that the previous seasons did. I also didn't like the last three or four episodes considering that they had a major drama feel to them.The Seventh Season captures the same feel that the 5th season had in a way, although it didn't do it all the way. I enjoyed the Seventh Season as I did all the others, and the ending is great.The Last Season flat out sucked. Eric wasn't in it, which ruined it. Kelso wasn't in it for the most part either, which didn't help. I hated the Eighth Season up until the last episode. I thought that the last episode was really good, and a fitting ending to the series.So overall, if you enjoy comedy, give That 70s Show a try. They stopped making new episodes, but it is still on TV a bunch. I also recommend buying Seasons 1-7. It is up to you if you want to buy Season 8. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-259055abd704434699348d61386b43e2", "input": "Review: I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian \"roughing it.\" These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-05b0e89c78d14db3a098bdcd20ae27eb", "input": "Review: I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-212d0d14236a4981b0a410fff33896ff", "input": "Review: This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making \"Loaded\". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.That being said, I love a good \"bad\" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are \"bad\".But this.......this crosses the line of \"bad\" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.Every cheesy editing \"effect\" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the \"shaky\" camera \"drug buzz rush\" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c472a757bc654dd98b6e68d97de5b7ae", "input": "Review: A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem \"solved\". They are of course \"out foxed\" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.The\"film\" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d34629c3f2a466da4de07bb7c74e789", "input": "Review: Sorry Fulci fans, but I could not get through this one. The soundtrack was about as annoying as they come, the acting was puerile, the story has been done and done, and the direction was non-existent. Massacre honestly looked like a children's film project. But I've seen some of those, and they actually look better than this did! It appears to have been so underfunded they couldn't afford ... ANYTHING! Not a DoP, not a director, no one who even remotely had a clue what acting was. It was a very poor cinematic experience; one of my worst.This was about the worst suck-fest I've seen, next to Terror Toons which is second only to Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I've nothing else to say about it.It rates a 0.1/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-66f7545ca1564d7392f54548ff1614b8", "input": "Review: Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-107a3115646c45fb81ed4718bd14d639", "input": "Review: this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-89ee38cce8af4a33b7e84e2a3d553be3", "input": "Review: There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political \"thriller\" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed \"edginess\" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f758987787843c98b1418181fc0c456", "input": "Review: Russ and Valerie are having discussions about starting a family. The couple live in a posh apartment and run an auction business that deals with valuable collectibles. At the same time, a dedicated adoption agency owner takes a mini vacation and leaves the orphanage in the charge of his father (Leslie Nielsen). Father Harry is in the rental business and he gets the brilliant idea to \"rent\" some of the children of the orphanage to couples like Russ and Valerie. Harry, who becomes aware of the couple'e dilemma, offers a family of siblings for a 10 day rental period! Brandon, Kyle, and Molly move into the apartment with their temporary parents, with amusing consequences, as the new caretakers are inexperienced with kids. But, where is the possibility of a happy ending? This is a darling family film. The actors, including Nielsen as the wheeler-dealer and Christopher Lloyd as the kind apartment doorman, are all wonderful. The script is snappy and fun and the overall production values quite high. Yes, if only life could be this way! Orphaned children everywhere deserve a chance to prove that they are lovable and can give so much joy to the parents who are considering adoption. If you want to show a film to your family that is rooted in good values but is also highly entertaining, find this movie. It is guaranteed to have everyone laughing, even as their hearts are melting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5927a41cb9dd45a9b940f1df8df0384e", "input": "Review: I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.Enjoy Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-97d8a70f72a542a9ac214d6d43a21804", "input": "Review: If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d3b620169f54d07b66bc35659eb3980", "input": "Review: This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the \"red-neck riviera\" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of \"Ulee's Gold\" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d257cd8ff804ea89cd3850fc7a5640e", "input": "Review: Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the \"mole\" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79fcdbbe00724457a6a3ee3ea2f63b14", "input": "Review: A surprising misfire from the usually reliable Larry Cohen (God Told Me Too, Q, etc.), Full Moon High tries so hard to be funny and fails miserably, even with decent turns by Ed McMahon(!) and Kenneth Mars. Alan Arkin looks embarrassed throughout his performance and son Adam simply looks numb. This makes Teen Wolf look like a comedy classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-159d8627e97f4f3f893e0be76522182a", "input": "Review: Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the \"untold story\", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5ed862ab57a4fbaa3d29b865f34a353", "input": "Review: I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-08b017b5254540f1942cde28ba4314af", "input": "Review: I thought it was a very funny movie. I love dog movies and comedy movies so combined they were twice as good. K-9, k-911, and k-9 PI are my favorite movies. Jim Belushi is hysterical and Jerry Lee is hilarious and adorable they make a great team. The only downside is that i really didn't understand how Dooley's wife died. She died before this movie but how? If they said it i must have missed it. Other than that I give it two thumbs/tails up! Those dogs (Jerry Lee and Zeus) must have had A lot of training. They were so funny and all the noises Jerry Lee would make when Dooley was talking to him was so funny. my favorite was when Jerry Lee sang and when he would bite peoples privates to get information very very funny lol Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5da828ca9414a1bb76b7ff78c52f1ff", "input": "Review: \"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the \"Gamera\" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of \"Godzilla\". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish \"Batman!\" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e13e56602f2841289fbf518826e2e0de", "input": "Review: I saw the omen when i was 11 on tv. I enjoyed the Trilogy. So when the chance to finally see one at the cinema came around i didnt pass it up. I went in to the cinema knowing that what i was about to see wasnt a cinema release but a made for TV film. However being a fan i couldnt resist. But this Omen movie which i saw at a midnight screening didnt bring chills it brought laughter. Risible Dialogue such as \"it is written that if a baby cries during baptism they reject there god\". What nonsense.No decent set pieces. Faye Grant so Good in V is wasted with this script from hell. No suprises and no fun. However i did laugh out loud several times at our bad it was.Truly Pathetic.1 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-81ee2a3813a94e02b289013b3a7b8757", "input": "Review: I see a lot of really negative posts by people who wrote in August, though the movie was not released in the US, at least, until the middle of September. Maybe these are unhappy expats living in S. Korea who saw it early. I am in the US and just saw it today. I thought the special effects were excellent, better than the trailer. The story was non-Western, but I think we are all used to this from many other movies. It wasn't at all hard to follow. The acting by the leads was weak, but other people were quite good. There was humor throughout, too. I rated it at 8 because I had a good time watching it, which is what I went for. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0d8bd5f2b94455ebfa60f84d2bbebbd", "input": "Review: Reese Witherspoon plays Dani, a young country girl that falls madly in love with the new 17 year old neighbor, Court, played by Jason London. Court tries his best to make Dani realize that the difference in their ages would make a love relationship improbable. Soon the nubile charm of Dani starts winning over Court's will. Next enters the meeting of Dani's older sister, played by Emily Warfield, and the beginning of a short lived love/jealousy problem.Tess Harper and Sam Waterston round out the cast. This is a fresh, free spirited; but heartbreaking drama that touches down deep. Feel free to cry. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-60da2a4b6aa64d8b9f8b7c2df741c6c3", "input": "Review: IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote \"character?\") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c9061e89bd4460e9a058e36cd455352", "input": "Review: The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-701084bb387b443e80e0a6dcdc0503f5", "input": "Review: This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled \"Starstruck\". I thought, \"What the hey\", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is \"Starfucker\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-587369ba43fd473390694a7c8f05deea", "input": "Review: Even if you know absolutely nothing about Ireland, you have to love \"My Left Foot\" (and especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in it). He plays cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown. Due to this, he has spent most of his life ostracized. Even when trying to warn people about something, they just laugh at him. The light in the darkness for him is that he has control over one body part: his left foot. He uses that appendage to paint and write poetry, bringing him to prominence.Daniel Day-Lewis and director Jim Sheridan did very well on this collaboration, and also on a later collaboration: \"In the Name of the Father\" (but \"The Boxer\" was unnecessary). \"My Left Foot\" can make you feel many ways: sad, hopeful, or something else. But in any case, Daniel Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime here. A great movie in every sense. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0f929e933075461e927aedbcc17660e5", "input": "Review: Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of \"naughty\" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the \"naughty\" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's \"naughty\" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ecc0de3dfc114859be97b8aef2e02598", "input": "Review: These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the \"shocking\" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a32594c58ca45a5aafba3069abb706c", "input": "Review: The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is \"discovered\" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da36a1a03f924f94b1b5a0b4d4d1dea6", "input": "Review: Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23e1524dedc14e5d910520a6fdb2818d", "input": "Review: I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-062e6e34524b49c4921be02af26d780a", "input": "Review: Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice (\"we are all special friends\"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7836b64218f74df8a4c7b5185c62f2df", "input": "Review: After just 15 minutes into this film, I began to miss Zhang Yimou's earlier, more weighty films that looked at the politics and society of China from unique perspectives. His turn to martial arts films was a serious misstep in my humble opinion. Hero was his worst film since Operation Cougar, with a needlessly complex story and acting more wooden than that found in a John Agar film. Shi Mian Mai Fu is no different. As an American who has been studying Chinese films for a few years now (and understands and can speak some Mandarin), I'm sure my opinion is different from many others as I'm coming from a different background. SMMF, like Hero, is not really a traditional a kung fu film, and it's certainly not a wuxia pian film. There are no sword & sorcery or chivalry elements here. This is a completely different vehicle than infinitely more watchable films such as A Chinese Ghost Story (all 3), The Butterfly Murders, Green Snake, et al. While those all featured charismatic leads who looked like they were actually enjoying what they do, SMMF features bland, and sometimes laughable, dialogue combined with cardboard acting. Zhang Ziyi plays a blind person about as well as Ben Affleck. There's an air of superiority with this film that's really quite insulting. It takes itself so seriously, it just becomes a huge joke by the end. All the actors look as though this is the most important piece of celluloid in history, they destroy any chance of actually conveying emotions, and the complete humorlessness of it really makes you wonder if Zhang Yimou was making a film per se, or simply a showcase (i.e. an \"ego booster\") for Zhang Ziyi. The camera is literally making out with her face and she gets sexually assaulted not once but twice in the film. Her acting range really hasn't extended past her ability to play a naive \"w\"itch. She's so concentrated on her acting, she comes across as cold and lifeless, as though she's reading her lines from a notecard. It's so funny to hear American critics and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece. I guess if they see a bunch of Asian actors on screen looking really important while flying through a bamboo forest, they're tricked into thinking it's brilliant film-making. Ching Siu Tung's choreography, while still retaining his trademark style, editing, and postures, lacks the vitality and originality of his earlier films like A Chinese Ghost Story, Dragon Inn, and Duel to the Death. Sadly to say, the wirework in this film is really subpar, and if there's subpar/obvious wirework, then you probably shouldn't have filmed it at high speed. The same goes for the special effects which have a distinct B-movie feel to them. Beans, daggers, bowls, arrows, swords, and other random objects fly through the air (after being thrown) with no regard for logic, turning, climbing, and banking as though there's a little pilot inside. I know that logic doesn't really hold a place in stylized Chinese martial arts films, but if you don't want to induce a mass amount of giggling from your audience, then you should probably work on your compositing a bit more. Mass melodrama, unintentionally funny dramatic moments, boring fight scenes, really uninspired plot twists are what await you with Shi Mian Mai Fu. It's obvious that Zhang Yimou is no longer making movies for Chinese audiences. This is meant to crack into the Western market just as CTHD did. After watching Hero and SMMF, I've come to the conclusion that if Zhang Yimou wants to make Hollywood films, he's definitely off to the right start. SMMF is basically The Phantom Menace of Chinese martial arts films. And I thought Hero was bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-11eeb7a1b7874ee09d76f65193674a60", "input": "Review: Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's \"Blue Fairy Godmother.\"This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8a6a553f2144a7c89a8817f409b82b2", "input": "Review: Having not seen the films before (and not being able to stand Matt Damon), I was reluctant to go see The Bourne Ultimatum when we were asked to see it for AS Film Studies. However, I was pleasantly surprised that even a film with Damon in it could be enjoyable. Fast fight scenes, crazy motorbike chases and BIG explosions were what threw you out of your seat in TBU. The near-misses between the CIA and Bourne kept you on your toes and throughly entertained.Nevertheless, several things really grated my cheese.Firstly, the fact that the film was just a series of Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA. This sequence got repetitive and ultimately dull. Although Damon did keep us entertained and seemed always one step ahead of the CIA, I was getting a bit annoyed with the constant survival of Bourne. He crashed a car and got out as if he had tapped it or something! Very unrealistic.And secondly (inevitably) - the SHAKY CAMERA. It was so shaky it was completely noticeable and made me and everyone who went to see it in my class (even the tutors) seasick. We were told by the tutors that if we ever used that in a film we made in class, it would automatically be wrong and we would be told to use a tripod. Fair enough if Greengrass wanted it to look like we were there watching Damon and Stiles holding a conversation, but surely we wouldn't be shaking our heads that violently!But all in all TBU is an enjoyable film and worth a watch. But I didn't think it was the best film of the year, despite being an entertaining piece of cinema.8/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb73a7bd328440f686dd70c3ab280bba", "input": "Review: THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-853149b773704f69a4a4c397270e8442", "input": "Review: Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of \"At The Movies\" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside \"edgy\" projects.None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, \"two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole\". Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): \"you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...\". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's \"revolutionary\" life! For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by1. never providing most of Che's story; 2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; 3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; 4. barely developing an idea, or a character; 5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; 6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; 7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and 8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the \"revolutionaries\", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that \"Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time\". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant \"revolutionaries\", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).The rest of Part2's \"woods\" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read (\"I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!\"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was \"uneven\", Part2 actually \"goes rapidly downhill\" from there, \"charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail\", which \"...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid\".Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf700dffb4b7437583672c9231312d22", "input": "Review: I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old \"political\" cliches. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1c9a64635754019861fb38c8dc093cc", "input": "Review: The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2088f0e47a9423592f80b52c9272cdf", "input": "Review: enjoyed the movie and efficient Confucian crime drama, the old order survives the threat posed by a brash young greedy man, no doubt representing modern society. I thought the final scene was strange and could not understand if we were to believe that big D was being punished for being greedy or it was part of the plan a long. I loved the scene and for once in a Chinese movie, the violence was not a choreographed martial arts fest. On thing that always amuses me about HK films is that the main influence the British seem to have had is to introduce 'yes sir' and 'sorry' into the local language and its amusing that long after we have gone, they are still there. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-39c634c323fa446e9f420650dc99c582", "input": "Review: i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9da934d1eaaf4f1fa55af4dd461ec73c", "input": "Review: but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst \"major release\" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4bf805a3bdec4474886e02dc77aa0e6a", "input": "Review: Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1f64043ed4d4cc9b2d41b532dbfb13f", "input": "Review: i thought this movie was wonderfully plotted it made me confused and my cousin who watched it with me.to tell the truth i think that the younger kevin dillon was hot.hahahaha...but i also thought the girl was stupid to go along with the cop and that was wrong what he said to her before his death\"i was inside you\".i think that's what she gets for doing what she did with him and how is he going to tell her that she's too young when he never cared how old the other girls were.?now i don't think i myself could ever trust a cop like that.but to tell the truth it was pretty obvious it was him even if he was wanting to become a cop i would still be suspicious of him either way.and that was funny when she sprayed him in the eye in the store.hahahahaha.she was still stupid for going into the warehouse again by herself and so was the cop who died HELLO!! it's called back-up.sometimes these movies make me mad when people act stupid and do stupid things.but that's what i think an thought about the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f285a3ab3ab841c4afadb68cb94f4d92", "input": "Review: I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0063fe37b19f4d19a95376b71a926dcb", "input": "Review: I really enjoyed this movie. The acting by the adult actors was great, although I did find the main kid a little stiff. But he carried himself very well for being a new talent. The humor is very sublime and not in your face like most Hollywood comedy junk. I.e. The Nutty Professor. If you have a short attention span and are used to the typical Hollywood stuff you probably wouldn't like this as it is a bit slower paced. I picked it up on Blu-ray and I have to say the image quality is top notch. Probably one of the better looking Blu-rays I've seen so far. The extras were cool too. They deleted quite a bit, but that's probably a good thing as most of the deleted scenes didn't really add anything. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e485d1eb953f4596ab42e074f99c170d", "input": "Review: If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a126cff34f144e1eba38635e08dc8841", "input": "Review: Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a \"Napoleon Dynamite\" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.Thank gosh I didn't pay for it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d570a58ca9734e57807be5111331e8dd", "input": "Review: 'They All Laughed' is a superb Peter Bogdanovich that is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and why? their are many reasons the fact that it's set in new york which truly sets the tone, the fantastic soundtrack, the appealing star turns from Ben Gazzara, and the late John Ritter who is superb. and of course no classic is complete without Audrey Hepburn. the film is a light and breezy romantic comedy that is very much in the vein of screwball comedy from the thirties, film is essentially about the Odyssey detective agency which is run by Gazzara who with his fellow detectives pot smoking and roller skating eccentric Blaine Novak(the films co-producer) and John Ritter, basically the Gazzara falls for a rich tycoon magnate's wife(Hepburn) and Ritter falls for beautiful Dorothy Stratten who sadly murdered infamously after production, 'They All Laughed is essential viewing for Bogdanovich fans. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78af0d010a0b448888eafef30099543a", "input": "Review: Loosely intended as a satire of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance, The Three Ages was Buster Keaton's first attempt at a full length comedy feature. The only similarities to Intolerance are the opening \"book\" scene and the fact that similar stories through the ages are edited together into a complete film. Keaton's reasoning for appropriating this style was that if it didn't succeed as a feature film, it could be reduced to three two-reelers. Fortunately, The Three Ages succeeds brilliantly as a comedy and contains some of the funniest routines I've seen in any of Keaton's film. There is nothing unique or daring about the story lines. They are simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plots, but the period satires are riotous and set the standard for future works by Mel Brooks and all films of this genre. However, I don't believe that anyone has ever topped this comedy. No one can play the lovable goof like Keaton and the stunts in this film are some of his best. In addition, Wallace Beery's appearance as Keaton's rival adds to this film's appeal. Anyone who thinks that comedy from the 1920's cannot be appreciated by modern audiences needs to see this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c316b63f335c4a298eb87191ee4e8edd", "input": "Review: I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52111986cdfb415fb1ec796413a88450", "input": "Review: Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf7124e0d7ff485aac3714ad23275235", "input": "Review: \"The house of the spirits\" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in \"The house...\". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc627ba7302a47a78e74ac5493cc06a6", "input": "Review: Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet. Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, \"When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help.\" This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways…1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.Favorite Quote – When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, \"Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?\" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, \"Now you're talking science fiction.\" He also continues to mention the \"Science Fiction\" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.Rating: 7/10Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3339f3103a3647a4bd649e9e43c483eb", "input": "Review: What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her \"Moonlighting\" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with \"Fried Green Tomatoes\" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with \"Dirty Dancing\", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to \"Three Men and A Baby\" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6e8a105e8264e2486b05a3013682f9e", "input": "Review: The first step to getting off of that road that leads to nowhere is recognizing that you're on it in the first place; then it becomes a matter of being assertive and taking positive steps to overcome the negative influences in your life that may have put you on that road to begin with. Which is exactly what a young Latino girl does in `Girlfight,' written and directed by Karyn Kusama. Diana (Michelle Rodriguez) is an eighteen-year-old High School senior from the projects in Brooklyn, facing expulsion after her fourth fight in the halls since the beginning of the semester. She affects a `whatever' attitude which masks a deep-seated anger that threatens to take her into places she'd rather not go. She lives with her father, Sandro (Paul Calderon), with whom she has a very tentative relationship, and her younger brother, Tiny (Ray Santiago). With her life teetering on the brink of dissolution, she desperately needs an outlet through which to channel the demons that plague her. And one day she finds it, without even looking for it, when she stops by the gym where Tiny trains. Ironically, Tiny wants nothing to do with boxing; he wants to go to art school, but Sandro is determined that his son should be able to take care of himself on the streets, and pays the ten dollars a week it costs for his lessons. When Diana convinces Tiny's trainer, Hector (Jaime Tirelli), to take her on, and approaches her father for the money, under the guise of calling it a weekly allowance (she doesn't want him to know what she wants the money for), Sandro turns her down and tells her to go out and earn her own money. Ultimately, with Tiny's help she finds a way, and the ring soon becomes her second home. It's an environment to which she readily adapts, and it appears that her life is about to take a turn for the better. And the fact that she will have to fight men, not women, in `gender blind' competitions, does not faze her in the least. Diana has found her element.\tFirst time writer/director Karyn Kusama has done a terrific job of creating a realistic setting for her story, presenting an honest portrait of life in the projects and conveying that desperation so familiar to so many young people who find themselves in dead-end situations and on that road that leads to nowhere. And there's no candy coating on it, either; as Hector tells Diana when she asks him how he came to be where he is, `I was a fighter once. I lost.' Then, looking around the busy gym, `Like most of these guys, they're going to lose, too. But it's all they know--' And it's that honesty of attitude, as well as the way in which the characters are portrayed, that makes this movie as good as it is. It's a bleak world, underscored by the dimly lit, run-down gym-- you can fairly smell the sweat of the boxers-- and that sense of desolation that hangs over it all like a pall, blanketing these people who are grasping and hanging on to the one and only thing they have, all that they know.\tMaking her screen debut, Michelle Rodriguez is perfectly cast as Diana, infusing her with a depth and brooding intensity that fairly radiates off of her in waves. She is so real that it makes you wonder how much of it is really Rodriguez; exactly where does the actor leave off and the character begin? Whatever it is, it works. It's a powerful, memorable performance, by an actor from whom we will await another endeavor with great anticipation. She certainly makes Diana a positive role model, one in whom many hopefully will find inspiration and the realization that there are alternative paths available in life, at least to those who would seek them out.\tAs positive as this film is, however, it ends on something of an ambiguous note; though Diana obviously has her feet on the ground, there's no indication of where she's headed. Is this a short term fix for her, or is she destined to become the female counterpart of Hector? After all, realistically (and in light of the fact that the realism is one of the strengths of this film), professional boxing isn't exactly a profession that lends itself to, nor opens it's arms to women. And in keeping with the subject matter of the film, and the approach of the filmmaker, an affirmation of the results of Diana's assertiveness would have been appropriate.\tThe supporting cast includes Santiago Douglas (Adrian), Elisa Bocanegra (Marisol), Alicia Ashley (Ricki) and Thomas Barbour (Ira). Though it delivers a very real picture of life to which many will be able to identify, there are certain aspects of `Girlfight,' that stretch credibility a bit, regarding some of what happens in the ring. That aside, it's a positive film that for the most part is a satisfying experience. I rate this one 7/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-31bbdd7b00df4f60962f8b0004a754ab", "input": "Review: This is one of the greatest movies ever maybe even the greatest movie ever. I had forgotten about the movie for about 12 years. Until I saw an add on TV for ADGTH and it brought back fond memories of me watching it when I was a little kid. And when I watched it a few nights ago I became addicted to the movie. Usually I don't like animated family movies but this one is special it is the perfect family movie.The ending of the movie always touches my heart and saddens me very much but that is what makes this movie amazing better than all of the garbage that is coming out for kid movies today. I mean the movie is G rated and it is about 2 dogs who are involved with gambling, there is a lot of smoking, drinking, murder, death and hell depicted in the movie. Which I Believe makes the movie from good to great. I mean movies today don't bring reality to kids and in this movie they did.RIP Judith Barsi & Dom DeLuise Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3bbb8a37f6ca482089d139add878979f", "input": "Review: Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1227a296aa6941f59ac7ef5eb2abcedb", "input": "Review: There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by \"mayor\" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd68ef662d454828ae5b0ee145d3d10c", "input": "Review: this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the \"special effects\" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9f15cc846ab466c8fa3fb84fa3e232c", "input": "Review: I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream \"NOTICE ME!\" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. \"MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!\" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.And I want my 30 minutes back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-03b59a1bdacd4e289a7534d2b263c824", "input": "Review: Action, violence, sex and coarse language are the things that the characters do during the whole movie. And everything they do is done without reason. Mark L. Lester is (un)known for his violent (without reason)movies (Commando, The Base). The story is weird but stupid. The actors play their stupid characters very well...I'm not telling they are stupid but I mean they are very bad actors. It's another low-budget unknown B series action movie. If you saw something like Operation Delta Force, Drive, The Patriot, Sanctuary or something like these bad movies from the same kind than Misbegotten...don't rent it...and, by the way, don't rent any of the movies I mentioned....I give it 1and a half out of5. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2e88c2bcfd84fa69ef5b9c2063e4c4f", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1063c79fc47f4e538881b918e500cb5b", "input": "Review: Okay, you have:Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.and finally:Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: \"I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world.\" Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of \"Brideshead Revisited,\" right?Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - \"hey, it's just the sunlight!\"Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is \"dewy-eyed.\"Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is \"Mrs.\" She's either \"Miss\" or \"Lady.\"When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a \"meanwhile,\") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be \"whisked away\" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)Great drama. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94b794c3f1594f7998b221bdad8fb099", "input": "Review: \"Night of the Living Homeless\" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming \"I don't have any change!!\" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in \"Fantastic Easter Special\" two weeks ago.Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b96f7451ae2401a80432dc7aa4b8fa0", "input": "Review: THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say \"oh sh*t!\" and \"get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s\" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d1fbda013264a579cb48aae8c90ce4e", "input": "Review: A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e5c4bc6cf0744ec928826c08e890a07", "input": "Review: After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producerRKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking aboutThe film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbledThe ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's familyThe end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterizationRKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a boreMusic is boringAmitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at timesAkshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hamsAryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenesBhumika emerges the best of the lotThe rest are okay Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d95187be8e694cadb3881a5b596b90cb", "input": "Review: First one has to take into account the time period this film was made in. 1995. Rappers were in it, and that added to the flair of it.Remy was a socially awkward teen trying to find his way and couldn't, until he met and was befriended by Nazis. They took him in. Nazi's aren't all this awkward, but like most gangs, they fill a void that is missing be it economic, social, emotional, whatever. Michael Rappaport played the part perfectly.Omar Epps was the hot shot track star, with a questionable work ethic and a chip on his shoulder. He kept trying to feel sorry for himself and his plight, and had his girlfriend and professor to straighten him out on it.Kristen was a young white girl trying to find herself and trying to fit in, until she was date raped. She then found her self experiment with her sexuality, and getting involved politically.This film deals with racism and like most things that deal with racism, people's own perspectives come into play.I read so many comments about how there were no 'evil' black characters but there were evil white one (Nazis). So what? Remy wasn't portrayed as evil at all, he was trying to find his way, and kept failing until some skinheads accepted him. He was scared, it was sad to see him devolve how he did. He even says right before he kills himself, I didn't mean it, I wanted to be an engineer.Ice Cube and Busta Rhymes were angry black men, Ice Cube was somewhat of an intellectual, and Busta Rhymes was just portrayed as a dumb thug. They both showed no consideration at all for their roommates, and generally appear to not like white people very much. They were angry like the Nazis but not on the level of Nazis in terms of overall badness. Sorry if this makes it seem unfair, but are there really black groups like the Nazis? No.People say it shows white=-bad black=good. Not true, the only bad white characters were the Nazis and the police, which is more or less true in real life. Kristen was a good girl, her boyfriend (omar epps roommate) was a good guy, and even Remy was a good guy, he was just misguided.Omar Epps, Ice Cube and Busta were seriously flawed characters, angry and inconsiderate. Although their constant harassment by police seemed to justify some of their anger. Remy's inability to fit in seemed to justify his anger as well.Good movie, well done. Like all movies that deal with racism, its a great piece to get a discussion going.I don't think Cube and Busta coulda beat those Nazis though. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-355dd1024c254a6188314f19ad0ae54c", "input": "Review: This film is scary because you can find yourself relating to ideas they have and can recall other people saying and having simialr ideas make this a haunting well done movie.... the camra style is not shakey to point it draws you out of film like blair witch it only adds to the raw \"real\" feeling of the film that makes it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b6b3338bb48440abb92c03de4503336", "input": "Review: One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, \"Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes..\" Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-48763b30d6d64bd6bf75c204a9d26622", "input": "Review: First saw this movie in about 1990, and absolutely died laughing through it. It became a cult favorite with my circle of friends, and we'd quote from it at the drop of a hat (\"I'm going home in a bag!\"). Needless to say, the humor is still there, 15 years later. It's become a tradition at Halloween time to expose many of my new friends to this film (good thing you can still buy it off Ebay!) I've found that Halloween candy tastes much better with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek..and this movie provides it all- pathos, suspense, unrequited love,nobility and the list goes on. Royal Dano provides an amazing heartfelt performance as Old Man Wrenchmuller. I remember seeing him in \"The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao\" as a bad guy who met a bad end. Here, you really feel for the old guy right from the beginning. If you aren't careful, you'll miss some of the levels of humor in this movie. The creators got real subtle in many ways with offhand comments, little subtle costume digs at other sci-fi movies, and even a scene ripped from the pages of Wile E. Coyote!Don't spend too much thought processes trying to analyze a movie, people- this is fun fare without the need for nitpicking, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone (well, maybe stupid people, but they won't know they're being mocked..).-Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go get a 'Zag-nut' bar....-Ramsay \"RC\" Cowlishaw, karaoke DJ/entertainer Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-540ed9b4a3974c40800717ba14f4562d", "input": "Review: Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b5b07fc0958416388fcf5aaa1f2cc85", "input": "Review: WOW, finally Jim Carrey has returned from the died. This movie had me laughing and crying. It also sends a message that we should all know and learn from. Jeniffer Aniston was great, she will finally have a hit movie under her belt. If you liked liar liar you will love this movie. I give it 9/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ea9cff46f0944f18ae6a7bcd8a96422", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2ab84d32c7744ef88d3ec55a396f65d0", "input": "Review: \"Black Angel\" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big \"give me a break\" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b9127ed1b7d497d8bd6e1214a2adbfa", "input": "Review: Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-309e7aee91464316bf19a6580069629d", "input": "Review: The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d34a135ff3ce43d9902c97cfae5b183d", "input": "Review: I went in not knowing anything about this movie and I walked out in an half hour knowing everything about it. It was one of worst movies I've ever seen. I'm a generally a nice person but if somebody told me they liked this movie, I would probably never talk to them again. Anybody who likes it throughly is most likely to have an extremely dry, hermit type personality. I'm gonna also include that they think they are pretty intelligent too, just like the self-centered fart bags who do the voices for the movie. I know everyone has different types of humor, some people may not even like mine, but that's okay; I don't think this covers any range of humor though. This movie is as flat and dull as Wes Anderson's mind. Go in and get ready to walk out; it's best to get your money back too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-589281be470740738e70ed7bd4f08491", "input": "Review: what can i say. oh yeah those freaking fingers are so weird. they scare the heck out of me. but it is such a funny film, Jim Carrey works the grinch. if you havent already seen it then what you waiting for an invitation. go, go and get watch it. you dont know what your missing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d8fe32b197840eeb5c30c153e587c7e", "input": "Review: Before Sunrise is romance for the slacker generation. Richard Linklater's romantic drama is an offbeat telling of a dream come true for most people. The film depicts romance in all it's glory, but without any of the pitfalls that befall most couples; and in short the film is about two people that have a relationship that's as close to perfection as relationships will ever come to - with just one problem, the problem of time. While most relationships wind down with time, this one keeps going strong throughout and time itself is the only thing that wears out. Before Sunrise is certainly not the typical sentimental 'Hollywood romance', which is another aspect that puts this film leagues ahead of the pretenders. The story follows two people, Jesse; an American and Celine; a French girl that meet on a train into Vienna. They instantly connect, and after telling her his awful idea for a television show and almost getting off the train, Jesse asks Celine to join him for the day in the picturesque city of Vienna...Before Sunrise works principally for two reasons - realistic acting and an immense script that builds the characters through their thoughts and feelings and thus allows us to get to know them as we do the people in real life. This allows the characters to be free, and it's easy to believe that these are real people and not just actors working from a script. This also allows us to feel for the characters for who they are, and not merely because they're the protagonists. This kind of realism is hard to capture as, at the end of the day, we as the audience know that they're watching a film and not observing real life; but Before Sunrise represents one of the truest to life exhibitions of realism ever to be seen on screen. A truly great script cannot work on it's own, and needs great actors to deliver it to an extent that does it justice, and although I'm not a fan of either Julie Deply or Ethan Hawke; on viewing this film, there is nothing you can do but give them both respect. I don't know whether they were in character or just playing themselves, but when a film is this good; it hardly matters.In a film like this, it is the writing that's the most important thing, and contained within the script are several observations about life, most of which I personally could relate to. This represents what Richard Linklater has achieved with this script as not only does it create and build the characters, but it also manages to expose what true love is, along with several other aspects of life. The fact that not all the anecdotes are relatable to me personally again represents the brilliance of writing. Everyone is different, and so different parts of the script will appeal to different people. There could be certain aspects about one person that one person loves and another hates; and that's the case with the musings in this script. Adding to the beauty of the film is the city of Vienna. The city itself isn't really important to the film as this is a story that could have taken place just about anywhere - but it makes for some lovely visuals and the upbeat, energetic romance that blossoms throughout the movie is matched by the beauty of the location.Before Sunrise is simultaneously beautiful and captivating. Richard Linklater has created something that is rare in the world of cinema; a film that captures the beauty of life without ever going over the top or being overly sentimental. Before Sunrise is what it is. And what it is, is pure cinematic brilliance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d4f2e5fd6aa4801a899cc399019ce43", "input": "Review: Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name \"A. Flea\" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming \"T- Bone!\" He then sings, \"There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!\")That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea. The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8828e9833d8042558d2af8342cdae358", "input": "Review: Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make \"The Sealed Room\" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. *** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e474168ee3194ca2bc7b4715f0afa1b1", "input": "Review: Esther Williams gets her first post MGM starring role and gets offto a good start. This film is a well acted entertaining suspensewith a mature theme that would be repeated a million times morein the future - innocent girl stalked creepy woman hater. Estherlooks great and if she wanted to, probably could have gone on todo more and better films but according to her autobiography, pretty much gave up working for marriage. Either way she is solikable and engaging that its fun to see her in a totally different roleoutside of the 'swimming musical'. Universal was fabulous formaking films with former MGM stars after that studio begandropping its biggest names as it began to slide down hill. Starslike Lana Turner, June Allyson and others got to make quality firstrate films at Universal as they obviously still had drawing power atthe box office. I wish Esther had made more but since she didnt, itmakes this one all the more special. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ae6cbf5cf24405f820db36b34422119", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-85ca0f14b17e424b9e0a9e753bb8245f", "input": "Review: In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting \"Give us back our husbands\". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, \"I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it\". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, \"there was nothing we could do\". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb1338eab54e4f37b018604f66fbc72f", "input": "Review: This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to \"Conquest\". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78f4c07c40c64042b28dd4d846b567aa", "input": "Review: I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book \"Modesty Blaise\" I was surprised the result got this good.What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up \"The network\" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.And please forgive me for my bad English Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-364763537b414737bdce1cddb30ce4bb", "input": "Review: Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural \"thriller\" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.The alleged \"killer cut\" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.1/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3dc749a695e742b19d00895a3f5b12ea", "input": "Review: I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca80ad0430bf43fb80940af7efb934b1", "input": "Review: I haven't read a single IMDb comment for this movie that mentions how the Jewish character in this movie jumped up and down like a little baby as a gun is pointed in his face by a racist skinhead while the movie's lead black character looked in sternness down the barrel of a gun.I don't know how anyone could perceive this as a balanced account of university life. I agree universities are not bastions of tolerance like they are supposed to be and the title would be fitting if Singleton didn't make his characters such broad caricatures.On the surface he tries to portray Ice Cube's character as a bad guy, provoking Remy to become a racist skinhead. But who graduates at the end in the movie's redeeming epilogue? It seems Singleton points at white as either unable to empathize (I didn't say sympathize!) with his fellow black student OR only able to take the path of a racist skinhead. Many people who have been bullied by people of another race do not turn to extreme bigotry.Nor do women who have been raped immediately turn to lesbianism, which is portrayed more as a cult than a lifestyle. Quite honestly what was the point? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b918f4dba4f45d6af2685b136633a23", "input": "Review: This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to \"Billy Lo\" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f08539a51f654e6f8297a04d52c4894f", "input": "Review: Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a \"Day in the Life...\" Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. This movie was a total disaster. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1da822c719144ecab93bde82b3ea7409", "input": "Review: I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbbe9238e44747c6a12714b8c271527a", "input": "Review: The creators of south park in their own film here, this is a brilliant film with a huge entertainment factor. If you like Naked Gun films and are not young and not too mature or serious on your humor, you'll love this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca0c06bd53244bde9551f743d50cfe99", "input": "Review: Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b00d860f32c14fb1b66cfc1e041bba7a", "input": "Review: I never thought an old cartoon would bring tears to my eyes! When I first purchased Casper & Friends: Spooking About Africa, I so much wanted to see the very first Casper cartoon entitled The Friendly Ghost (1945), But when I saw the next cartoon, There's Good Boos To-Night (1948), It made me break down! I couldn't believe how sad and tragic it was after seeing Casper's fox get killed! I never saw anything like that in the other Casper cartoons! This is the saddest one of all! It was so depressing, I just couldn't watch it again. It's just like seeing Lassie die at the end of a movie. I know it's a classic,But it's too much for us old cartoon fans to handle like me! If I wanted to watch something old and classic, I rather watch something happy and funny! But when I think about this Casper cartoon, I think about my cats! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a22d291e5f143f691266aeb9940530d", "input": "Review: It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-55ea0f2c45cd484e8430439433575f6c", "input": "Review: This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest \"Downfall\" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest \"Brotherhood of War\" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d7540941fa142949ffa988ac37dfc8a", "input": "Review: I absolutely love this game to death. Ever since I was 9 years old (I am now 15). It has great graphics, characters, magic, weapons, additions, and don't forget the ultimately awesome dragoon forms! I am still waiting for a remake, prequel, or a sequel to this spectacular video game. You play as Dart, a young swordsman who has the potential to be quite the hero. On this adventure you encounter wondrous creatures and boss fights. You also encounter some friends on the way who have their own special element. Such as Fire, Darkness, Water/Ice, Thunder/Lightning, Earth, Light, and Wind. There are also items known as dragoon spirits, which allow you to transform into magical creatures of legend. Dragons, wizards, creatures called winglies and evil creatures you'll have to face on this adventure of action-packed thrills and excitement. One of my all time favorite games, The Legend of Dragoon! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f397e83052e42feb0a549a7180c514f", "input": "Review: This was a delightful presentation. Hemo (blood) as a Greek god was so well played by the animation with vanity, arrogance, snobbish superiority and innocent wonder. The quote (or scene) I recall vividly is when Hemo tires of \"all this plumbing ... you haven't learned my secrets at all\" and threatens to storm out, the Scientist answers him in a single word \"Thalassa\" -- salt water which horrifies the Fiction Writer but mollifies Hemo and segues so neatly into the chemical aspects of blood. Such a splendid blend of entertainment and information make this a classic as fresh and engrossing today as the day it was released. Stimulating the interest and imagination is fundamental to teaching kids to love learning. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-efab55b217374ddfaa4fb302e68ad34c", "input": "Review: Excellent movie, albeit slightly predictable. I have to comment on Nicole Kidmans acting in this movie. Some of her other works haven't shown the amazing talent this woman has, but Birthday Girl doesn't suffer from this in the slightest. Even without words Kidmans acting shines through. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4994ac994147499b93b0c9450b50b44a", "input": "Review: Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8cc98534e2a84d17aab4e76cdb5df5b4", "input": "Review: Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-757b4e387614403bae073f42c62ea6ec", "input": "Review: I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b65379d01b6f4a6c94fbc33a4eb8c840", "input": "Review: This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b7977c6852e45c9a43db33af88ff252", "input": "Review: These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-762f2a20ec544328a5f5fdf30db6a7c5", "input": "Review: First off, I'd like to make a correction on another review of this film which said that the last musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award was 'Gigi' in 1958. That is misinformation as 'West Side Story' won in 1962, 'My Fair Lady' won in 1965 and 'Sound of Music' won the year after that. That said, this film is absolutely fantastic! The story from the novel has been somewhat altered, but that's more because of the limitations that they had on a stage that they just didn't change back for a filmed version. However, I don't mind. In fact, I rather think the whole production flows better than the novel does. I like Nancy bringing Oliver to the bridge with her and being killed there instead of later in the apartment. The subtle things in this film are the ones that make me laugh. I love the moment Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Bumble start coming out at the beginning from the governors office. The underscore for that moment is brilliant. My three favorite actors for this film were Jack Wild, who plays the best Dodger in any film version of the story, Ron Moody, a playful and humorous Fagin (this character is worked out much better than he is in the book), and Shani Wallis, who is the strongest, most distressed version of Nancy. The only reason I'm giving this film a 9 instead of a 10 is because of the two big production numbers which are 'Concider Yourself' and 'Who Will Buy.' I always hate when the choreography in musicals in meant to look like people doing everyday chores and jobs. It looks awful and cheesy, especially when they're dancing at the London Meat Co. They should've just done regular choreography for these scenes. However, this film is a rare treasure that will stay with us, hopefully, forever. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79ec30608d2b46fda8bd20e25a1dcc08", "input": "Review: What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.Spoiler of sorts follows.Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is \"presque rien.\" I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52e7f5478f254176988195dafe8d9edb", "input": "Review: Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's \"The Town the Dreaded Sundown\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-befbf7bf6c3c4ec5a8c8ec6e3f4290d3", "input": "Review: I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d46e81899594b6d8355723142283da7", "input": "Review: In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale \"Romulus, My Father,\" Eric Bana, of \"Munich\" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).Even though I admire \"Romulus, My Father\" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fed7524d5534bb4bd8f421c0d910932", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing \"I want to be a sailor\" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f59debd51e9448b3be140f454636a46e", "input": "Review: The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in \"Vertigo\", released the same year as this film, but then \"Vertigo\" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-87ba34ae81ed4934a18ceecab33a066e", "input": "Review: I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2f49bcd4b32440cdbac696f7db687ea8", "input": "Review: Though I like E.E. \"Doc\" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a4f4032312743c79f126183bec819c2", "input": "Review: I initially bought this DVD because it had SRK and Aishwarya Rai on the cover and I thought, hey! another film starring Aishu and Shah Rukh, little did I know that Aishwarya would only appear in an item number in the last quarter of the film in a song which she shares with SRK and helps introduce his character who is in the film for about just 15 minutes. Shakti is a film about a mother's love and endurance. It's a film about transformations, ignorance, coming of age, stepping into the know and embracing the harsh realities of life. The item number in which SRK and Aishu appear in has nothing to do with the movie. It's actually a dream sequence that occurs while SRK's drunken character is knocked unconscious by booze. He dreams that Aishwarya Rai is this sexy street girl who shows up at his favourite hangout spot one day, dressed scantily and begins to seduce him. The title of the song is 'Ishq Kamina' (loosely translated as \"Love's a bitch!\") and it is just plain smoking hot! Don't miss it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8da3304fa86488192df1007652c3086", "input": "Review: Absolutely awful movie. Utter waste of time.background music is so loud that you cannot understand speech. Well if you really listen closely, whatever they speak is actually unintelligible.Camera work is bad, editing is not present, background score gives a headache, action is shoddy, dialogs are unintelligible, Acting is abysmal and well Kareena used to look like a wrestler, now she looks like a starved wrestler. Hell you can slim down but you cannot gain grace.After spending three hours watching a movie I want to like it, but this movie would not even allow me that pleasure. Please if you want to torture yourself, go ahead watch this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70949a2260754c3dbdf01130918f00be", "input": "Review: Any movie that has nude scenes of Karen Allen and I'm still so bored I walk out, that is a stinker! Karen gets stuck in Paris, and befriends a sissily-handsome French man with whom she is having sex soon. Of course he's married, (\"But, cheri, why should that be a problem?\") What could be an interesting clash of cultures is (believe it or not) just dull. I walked out. Maybe the movie got a lot better after I left; but it would have had to have gotten a LOT better to make up for a rotten beginning.My advice, if you find yourself in this, run, do not walk, for the exit. Save your time and your energy. Most assuredly save your money. It's a shame the production company didn't save its money. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1ac49d0f883e467991b907be643e81ac", "input": "Review: Billy Crystal normally brings the crowd to laughter, but in this movie he and all the rest of them cannot bring any smile on my face.... or perhaps just one. They call it comedy, I say it's a waste of my time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3c74fdcb5a95406385b60ac62d371c15", "input": "Review: This was a great movie with a good story. My children (10, 7, 5, and 4) all loved this movie, including myself. The music was also fantastic. No, the horses do not talk, but instead, the story is told by Spirit. And to hear a story told by a horse's point if view was fun.I think the title says it all, \"spirit\". This movie really gives you a sense of family and home and friends. I would have to say my 4 year old boy and 5 year old girl were really touched by this movie, and even got so into it, they laughed so hard, and they cheered for spirit in the end. Enjoy \"Spirit\" with your family and have your spirit lifted with this heartwarming story. Your kids will love it. I think you will too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-33e0a19e456848e79da60b7fa1aa97b5", "input": "Review: Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing \"Spot the Villain\" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea3f814dea69448cafd52d0c75bb2f7c", "input": "Review: Unfortunately the movie is more concerned with making lame social commentary on a real event, but doesnt have the balls to legitimately document what happened. The constant rhetoric of how violent video games are not to blame (I get the impression Ben Coccio is an avid gamer), or how media and music is completely devoid of influence is the obvious message (we even get a laughable scene of the two boys burning ALL their cd's, talk about subtlety!), but the movie only gets away with it because its 'fiction'. Nice try. Yes its a great idea to relieve media of influence, but how do we know the kids that have actually planned and executed a school shooting werent influenced by media? or video games? We dont, and we wont with this movie because once again these kids are smart enough to completely relinquish the media, yet dumb enough to scorch a nazi symbol on the ground? haha I somehow dont think so.The movie bats you over the head with its portrayal of the normalcy of the families, its almost doing a disservice to think that there wasn't a serious flaw in the family dynamic of kids that have actually gone out and shot their fellow schoolmates. Why is everyone so concerned with making killers seem \"normal\", when they are so obviously not? A completely false and phony depiction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fedd88224c9e4e98a70e64c057f8ce4a", "input": "Review: I enjoyed this film very much. Many Korean people will feel familiar with this film because many of them have tutors when they go to school. Cinematography was average. The movie would have been better if the angel or the movement of the camera was more irregular. Editing, however, was very neat and unusual.The acting was also very good. Kim Ha Neul usually played an innocent, weak girl in the Korean soap-opaeras. But this time, she plays a cute tomboy very well. Kwon Sang Woo also plays his role very believable.What I like the most about this film is, the emotion of the characters are not too exaggerated. There are many Korean romance films that the characters cry river before the audience and I always thought it was very stale. There was no such crap in this movie.Very funny and well-done. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d13e55f36747aab16ca3b229c12b72", "input": "Review: This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8127433b04841efb02d4047d384f9e2", "input": "Review: I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant \"A Double Life\" and the funny \"Born Yesterday\" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as \"Adam's Rib\" and \"Pat And Mike\" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as \"Bachelor Mother\", \"Some Kind Of A Nut\", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. \"Ethnic\" jokes are now totally verboten, but \"fag\" jokes are still \"good, clean, family fun\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53ed07f461a14db3bda85891675e582d", "input": "Review: The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b15b77d2025413799fd4ec98906ab7a", "input": "Review: This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a \"chick flick.\" Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-57aeaea54fed45e5bc2f00f2085f0186", "input": "Review: Call me adolescent but I really do think that this is a great series. If you haven't had a chance to experience a few episodes of the latest Star Trek series, you should definitely watch this one. Perhaps more compelling than that of Voyager's Caretaker, which launched the series with Cpt. Janeway, Archer's adventures are completely different, yet strangely familiar...The music is catchy too. No true Sci-fi fan can go without seeing at least one Star Trek episode--and these installments make the wait worthwhile. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b22f16d0cd245f7aa6473543c588c88", "input": "Review: I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-503b325d5a814528bf5a0c7c9eb1d58b", "input": "Review: In the Hollywood west those trail hands were a rough bunch who when they came to town, partied pretty hardy. After all trail driving was a lonely business back in the day before railroads got to all parts of the USA. The drovers who worked for trail boss Gil Favor as played by Eric Fleming were no different. But Fleming was a man of all business, he had a job to do and hired a top crew to do it. With the long run of Rawhide and the fact that the regulars stayed with it for the most part, we got to know all the drovers at some point. A some point story lines were focused around all of them, though the bulk were with Fleming and Clint Eastwood's character Rowdy Yates, the number 2 guy with the herd.Clint Eastwood's western image was molded by Rawhide, it's a shame that these are not shown more often. Probably because they were done in black and white. Had this been an NBC show, this would have been done in color like Bonanza and be running as often as those shows are. We'd get to see a lot more of a man who became a move legend.Ironically enough it was Eric Fleming who left the show before it closed to do films. He did a few them and was hoping the show would give him a bankable movie name. Sadly he was killed on a movie location doing an action film, drowned in a river. Had he lived he might have become a name like Eastwood's.Clint took over as trail boss in the last season and then the show completed its run. And he of course became the icon he is today and not just in the western genre.Rawhide was a tough western who had some tough guys in it. No frills in this one, these were working cowboys just doing a job and battling the elements and whatever situations they were thrown into every year.They really don't make television series like these any more. What a pity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a05a4d3eebd9494aad609bfc9e822e0f", "input": "Review: The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great \"white house\", he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner \"cleaning\" his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a9a27ceb8ae419ea72587bf20d52ea7", "input": "Review: Perhaps the funniest 'backstage at Hollywood' movie ever, especially for a look at comedy short factories like Keystone.Marion Davies should get a medal for bravery for taking a part where acting poorly in front of a camera is part of the role. Plenty of cameos for film buffs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a94a57b370984696b26298303a56fe50", "input": "Review: OK, I knew this would be a back alley F-film (well below B-film standards) going into it, so I thought, \"Man, I could use a good laugh, so let's see some nether-beings kill each other.\" Well, what I got could have been found at your local \"love toy\" store. Random lesbian scenes, very little fighting, and no plot.For example, one scene in particular I remember (for its sheer stupidity only; I've seen better porn on ABC) is where the two main characters (I can't remember their names offhand...great movie, huh?) are driving along, as they mostly did, and the driver was tired of driving and stopped:Driver: \"Let's pull over, I'm tired. You want to take over?\" Passenger: \"Sure, I can drive for a while.\" (Once pulled over, the driver starts grabbing the passenger's boobs) Passenger: \"What are you doing? I'm not like that!\" Driver: \"It's OK, everyone does it sometime.\" Passenger: \"OK then.\" (Proceed to take off shirts, fondle, kiss, and perform fellatio)Now, last time I checked, horror films were not in the porn section of Hollywood Video (unless you're into S&M, then you go elsewhere), and it definitely shouldn't be in the mainstream videos at Blockbuster. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not one of those people who hate porn, but I only watch it when appropriate and definitely don't want to watch it if I'm looking for a movie in the mainstream stores, as this one I rented was at one of the two retailers I named (and probably at the other too if I went and looked).Worst movie ever, no one should rent it, and it should only be bought for a public burning ceremony. If I could give it a 0, I would, but I can only give it a * of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a12f18514aa40daa59f1c3a5df36ca3", "input": "Review: Released in December of 1957, Sayonara went on to earn 8 Oscar nominations and would pull in 4 wins. Red Buttons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in his role as airman Joe Kelly who falls in love with a Japanese woman while stationed in Kobe during the Korean War. Oscar nominated for Best Leading Actor, Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd Gruver, a Korean War flying ace reassigned to Japan, who staunchly supports the military's opposition to marriages between American troops and Japanese women and tries without any success to talk his friend Joe Kelly out of getting married. Ironically Marlon Brandos character soon finds love of his own in a woman of Japanese descent. This movie highlights the prejudices and cultural differences of that time. Filmed in beautiful color and with stunning backgrounds I found this movie to be well worth watching just for these effects alone. Good movie, gimme more...GimmeClassics Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-123ccdf618d6480c9ff1a9dd782bb2d1", "input": "Review: I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-09bcfb1517544c77a84e6dcb23bae90f", "input": "Review: This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH* Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebd891848dc842e8a3de61a9e95b37b0", "input": "Review: Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac85627658f1451ea8fb68b553917a1d", "input": "Review: When it comes to Paul Verhoeven and erotic thrillers, most people think of \"Basic Instinct\" and some maybe of \"Showgirls\". But Verhoeven has made his best erotic thriller years before these two movies: \"De Vierde Man\". This film is mesmerizing and mindblowing - and above all the story is absolutely plausible, which makes the whole experience even more intense. The performances by Jeroen Krabbe, Renee Soutendijk and Thom Hoffman are exceptional, and Verhoeven's direction does the rest. \"De Vierde Man\" makes even \"Basic Instinct\" look quite tame... It can't get much better than this, a true classic of erotic nightmare cinema. 10 out of 10, at least... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-63803405b5e24f439aa7dcc8e146e476", "input": "Review: Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a42b8a563c942f88d271b8144c8fb04", "input": "Review: This movie leaves the intellectual mind thinking and trying to analyze the story. I too cannot understand why people would trash this movie.If you are a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, this movie may not suitable for u.This movie presents high degree of realism. The actors and actresses' performance is examplary. Not fake, just natural. No special sound.effects, so special side effects.The camera work is excellent, the music is oh so good. I can't wait to get the soundtrack.It leaves your body numb, like Constant Garderner.The directly has raw talent, certainly not a follower. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7277b99e7a74444c96401cd40dcd06cf", "input": "Review: there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless. boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -as it is, it's a real hoot. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19d45f50a3d048869eb2e5387bf63a41", "input": "Review: SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4cd61ab827444ccf99b1dac5da93c4ad", "input": "Review: The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-84b061edd450412e8c384fd18579f8c9", "input": "Review: Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2af20970906442be92d737ce5685f739", "input": "Review: I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like \"The Man In The White Suit\" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.\"It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress,\" Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.One problem with \"Man In The White Suit\" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, \"White Suit\" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going \"Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop\" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in \"Doctor Zhivago\" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against \"shabbiness and dirt\", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.Supporting players make \"White Suit\" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of \"Bride Of Frankenstein\" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in \"Lawrence Of Arabia\". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy \"Whisky Galore\" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. \"Kind Hearts And Coronets\" and \"The Ladykillers\" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. \"White Suit\", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a31d2b66913e43c5b0b1874a24a102aa", "input": "Review: Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do.. all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...Peace out!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f817f4ca4054ccbbcfb77c34287335d", "input": "Review: This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b941de5c2d2544bcbbf6364bb1194c9d", "input": "Review: I have loved this movie all of my life. It's such an intelligent story also, with plenty of classical allusions. eg. The ship that went missing decades earlier was called the Bellerophon. Well, in classical mythology this was the man who slew the Chimera, a legendary beast composed of two or more other creatures. In FP, Walter Pidgeon is clearly the chimera- himself and his Id monster. I like movies where the writers have clearly credited their audiences with a modicum of intelligence, unlike most modern blockbusters which spend $150m on special effects, but about $1.50 on a screenplay.Cheers Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-39bc7e5f680c459981c92726540262b7", "input": "Review: This is a story about Shin-ae, who moves to Milyang from Seoul with her young son Jun to start over after the accidental death of her husband. Her husband was born here, and she is opening up a piano school, but also has ambitions to own some land with the insurance money she received from the death. If that is what the film was about, it probably would have been like a Hollywood film, with her falling for some local guy and being happy with her son in their new home. But, this is not Hollywood. Her son gets kidnapped and murdered, ostensibly because it is known she has cash from the settlement. The grief process, attempts at moving on, attempts to clear her conscience of guilt, are all done admirably, and the lead actress is superb. The only caveat, and it has to be stated, is that this is a depressing film. You have to know that going in. You want Shin-ae to go through her grief and find some measure of happiness. Again, this is not Hollywood, it is Korea and in Korean cinema, especially drama, they pull no punches. Life is what happens to you. Great acting, but sometimes a tough film to watch, due to the goings on. If you stay, you'll be rewarded. Do that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-20dd9c9e6dda42e4b838a4887e242e6a", "input": "Review: This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a4b5b3577994ed5b6e4d56d068b616f", "input": "Review: I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50db6df301504e28899893eb9b80d823", "input": "Review: The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John \"Bud\" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-577dfe0844fb470e806a25093d12f3e8", "input": "Review: The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. SOME SPOILERSThe basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b4a2e38a80e4f40bd1466ea94e8eaef", "input": "Review: Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both \"life-like\" and real. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2aff123534a4f4db7717fd1965c2e72", "input": "Review: Unlike many other films, which are disturbing either by dint of their naked unpleasantness (Man Bites Dog) or their sheer violence (most Peckinpah films), Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real. The movie's plausibility is greatly aided by the playing of the leads, particularly Ned Beatty and Jon Voight as the victim and reluctant hero respectively. Burt Reynolds, too, has never been better. The film's cultural influence is demonstrable by the number of people who will understand a reference to 'banjo territory' - perhaps only Get Carter has done such an effective hatchet-job on a region's tourist industry. I can think of only a handful of movies which put me into such a serious depression after they had finished - the oppressive atmosphere of Se7en is the best comparison I can think of. Although so much of it is excellent of itself, Deliverance is a classic above all because there are no adequate points of comparison with it - it is unique. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2bd3c3d885c42db82ca717238409b5b", "input": "Review: A beautiful new print of \"Zabriskie Point\" is playing in Paris and seems to be doing well in the Latin Quarter. It's time for a full evaluation of the film. Let's hope that the new print means that a DVD with some insightful \"extras\" will be out in the near future.I remember watching ZP when it came out and thought it was a crashing bore. This time around I was totally awed and would classify it as a \"near-miss\" masterpiece. The first part of the movie is a time capsule of late '60's Los Angeles, I lived there then, and Antonioni did a masterful job of capturing the essence of the place. Kudos to production designer Dean Tavoularis who found some incredible locations and did outstanding work.The print I saw runs 1 hour 50 minutes. It is forbidden to those under 16 (or 18, I can't remember). I suspect there is quite a bit of restored footage in this print. SPOILER -- I wonder how much of the desert sex scene was originally cut. What appears today seems rather tame by current standards.There is no soundtrack music until almost 1 hour into the film. Before we hear extraneous noise such as radio broadcasts, etc. Antonioni was very daring to do this. I remember how much was made at the time of the lack of acting skills of non-actors Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin. This time Frechette did not bother me. Halprin is weaker but gradually improves as the film continues.Much of the student riot footage looks like stock footage to me. One shot is in a different aspect ratio & distorted by the wide screen. Of course, there is actual staged footage, but not all that much.I'm still trying to figure out how Antonioni did some of the shots of Frechette flying the plane. It looks like he really did some of the flying - there's no blue screen or double in some shots.I hope to get back to see the film a second time. Recommended highly to all Antonioni fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-908af25a1f304dae8981d8438561b8bc", "input": "Review: For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2630036814044ced84f3765e44932085", "input": "Review: This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-72d5b0fe4af74de0b43b6cc4d84923b5", "input": "Review: If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-04b6c445c1ce46c5ac402544855fe15d", "input": "Review: This film is a huge steaming pile. I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ebb6c354af9744b8b9901b9da7350591", "input": "Review: Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his \"House of 1,000 Corpses\" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in \"The House of Seven Corpses,\" but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like \"Satan's School for Girls\" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with \"Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things\" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. \"The House of Seven Corpses\" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b17cf1dc04204bbebce3705033607cfc", "input": "Review: A sentimental story with a sentimental sound track. It's about a little girl ( with a voice impediment ) who treasures her green parrot Paulie. The parrot thinks and talks like a human being and gives help and advice to his constant companion.The parrot is definitely the star of the film. At times mischievous and at times in fits of depression the bird captures the mood in a most remarkable and expressive way. The synchronised voice too is very well done and within a minute or two you can actually believe that this intelligent little bird exists.Early in the film her father gives the bird to a pawnbroker and the subsequent scenes tell the story of Paulie's constant struggle over many years to be re-united with his mistress. One of the many memorable scenes is when he falls into bad company and is encouraged to spy on people using the automatic teller machines. Paulie it seems has a phenomenal memory.The ending is predictable, but who would want it otherwise. Children will love this film and anybody who keeps a bird as a pet will delight in Paulie's antics. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-87c2023d1bed40898888bbbec648a40b", "input": "Review: Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. \"DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!\" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a52e9431238421892eacc87fc1544ef", "input": "Review: I love a good war film and I fall into the \"been there, done that\" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.It started off with me shouting at the TV saying \"you wouldn't do that\" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the \"Contact Right\" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!Not recommended...it will just bore you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2fcdb9d772848168c714a7067df0d32", "input": "Review: Fire And Ice is an animated film set in a fantasy world. The film is about a village that is destroyed by a giant glacier which is the home of the evil ice lord named Nekron. The only survivor of the village is a young man named Larn who sets out to avenge those who were killed by the glacier. The ice glacier moves through the land of fire and the princess of the land named Teegra is kidnapped by evil creatures. Larn sets out to find her and also sets out to find and kill Nekron. Fire And Ice is directed by Ralph Bakshi who is one of my favourite adult animators. He has brought us such animated masterpieces as the film version of Fritz The Cat and some films he has written himself, like the great film Heavy Traffic. I didn't like Fire And Ice nearly as much as I have Ralph Bakshi's other work, but I still found the film to be enjoyable. It had some very nice animation in parts and the story was entertaining enough. The only basic complaints I have is that I wish that there was more of a story to the film because the story it uses is very thin and there is not a lot to it. I also wish the film was a bit longer because it is under 80 minutes in running time. Still it's an entertaining action adventure films that unlike Fritz The Cat or Heavy Traffic is appropriate for kids 8 and older. I only wish that there was a more developed story and it went on a bit longer than it did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9165538fa884c69817dd8c32e5c9765", "input": "Review: This is the worst ripoff of Home Alone movies that I have EVER seen! Watch part 1 and two, but don't let anyone say that this is BETTER than the first two! I mean, really, you don't make a movie, then make a sequel with the same characters and actors, and then make another sequel with DIFFERENT characters and actors! I mean, it would have been OK if this wan't a \"Home Alone\" movie, but they DID make it a Home Alone movie. Culkin is too old now, so you're suppose to STOP making sequels! Goodness, this movie makes me SICK! Buy part 1 and 2. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d3cdc8b3828a4b04bf45fa88a4b09d62", "input": "Review: I had seen Marion Davies in a couple of movies and really couldn't understand her appeal. She couldn't dance for peanuts, she didn't attempt to sing and as for her acting - she seemed in a trance. But I hadn't seen her silent comedies and this film is wonderful. Rather than kidding her own image, as has been suggested here, to me it seems a satire on Gloria Swanson, who did start off in slapstick comedies, went on to highly emotional women's pictures and did end up marrying a Count. Marion, a top mimic, also did a funny rabbit imitation whenever she wanted to be seen as grand, that was Gloria Swanson spot on!!!Colonel Pepper (Dell Henderson) has motored all the way from Georgia to Hollywood, determined to prove that his daughter, Peggy, (Marion Davies) will be the greatest star ever. Their hope dwindles and they are down to their last 40 cents when they meet Billy Boone (William Haines) who works at the slapstick studios and promises to get Peggy a job. Peggy thinks she is going to be a great dramatic actress but the studio think she is a fantastic comic. They convince her to make the film and at the preview she is a great success. Charlie Chaplin asks for her autograph but she doesn't recognise him and treats him pretty rudely. \"Who was that short little guy\" - when she finds out she faints!!! Peggy and Billy get a call from High Art Studio but only Peggy is wanted and suddenly she is on her way. There is a funny scene where she sees a star she doesn't think much of - it's Marion Davies!!!She finally gets a chance of being a dramatic actress - but she can't cry!!! It is a hilarious scene as the director tries everything to get her to cry and when he succeeds, she can't stop!!! Her new leading man, Andre (Paul Ralli) convinces her to forget her comedy past and become elite and sophisticated - she even adopts a new name - Patricia Pepoire!!! She also seems to have forgotten Billy and her dad - she has developed a \"STAR\" personality!!! When the slapstick studio picks the same location as \"Patricia's\" movie, Billy is thrilled to see her but quite unprepared for her snobby attitude. When she calls him a cheap clown he realises that she is not the girl he once knew. After a studio luncheon ( a magnificent panning shot of some of the greatest stars of the day) \"Patricia\" gets a call from the Boss. It seems her films are a flop and no theatres want to book them - the public are tired of her mannerisms and want the old Peggy back. She and Andre decide to get married, she dreams of being a Countess (even though Billy says that Andre used to serve him spaghetti in a little cafe downtown and is no more a Count than he is). On her wedding day, Billy visits and after a hilarious custard pie fight she realises that Billy is the one for her.It was amazing to see all the guest stars - John Gilbert is seen going through the MGM gates, Lew Cody is talking to Elinor Glynn, who not only wrote \"It\" but several racy romances that were made into MGM movies. William Haines, another actor whose movies I had always wanted to see, was great - especially in the cafeteria scene , he had wonderful comic timing. Harry Gribbon was hilarious as the comedy director - there were so many hilarious scenes in this film and Marion was at the top of them all - I'm giving this film 10 out of 10.Highly, Highly Recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd66ea2ed8db4ad5b80395d02a7fbf34", "input": "Review: You could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.Best not to look this one up. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfb362aeb581447c909ed7aea55cbb16", "input": "Review: About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that \"mood\" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where \"Leah\" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of \"Leah\" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef00e6f67638446bb28e4be12d5d761b", "input": "Review: In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92ebfed5c6314a6bb3ffc238c381aeb3", "input": "Review: They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as \"down boy\", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db82c2077da046ccb70457e4e1f6ffbd", "input": "Review: Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of \"Booty Call\", \"Pumpkinhead\", \"Swarm\", and \"The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh\". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question \"who was so stupid to finance such a whale?\" But then, had good judgment prevailed and \"Final Justice\" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in \"Mystery Science Theatre 3000\"! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a66609d8ac404bb580801b4caff07da5", "input": "Review: When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the \"owner\" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-363451b85d2444cb842a6f6ab88b2422", "input": "Review: When I rented this movie to watch it, I knew that it was not going to be a mindbender movie. Instead I thought of it as a disbelief of reality where someone is going to get a serious beating. And you know what it worked. Kurt Russel did what I though was a remarkable role in showing the emotionless soldier that he was. I recommend this movie if your out with the boys and want to watch a good action film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ae6fe7f3de54479b824cfabecc13e87", "input": "Review: This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd984c3a85b246de809bc84a1472499f", "input": "Review: this is a visual adaptation of manga with very little dialogue. what dialogue there is appears in word baloons as it would in the manga. the plot of this is existent but only vaguely accounted for. there is an issue of the manga on which this is based available in english in the blast books collection, 'comics underground japan', and it has actual captioned dialogue that explains the plot a bit more than here. i recommend checking that volume out if you liked this, as it explains some of the \"plot\" of the movie, which is otherwise inexplicable. animation wise this is pretty decent, good unintrusive use of computers and the images are for the most part realized well. it jumps in and out of episodes, as the characters, a cat and his brain-dead older sister cat wander in and out of a series of odd images: a boat, a circus, a desert. for a mere half hour they go through a number of semi-plots and settings, which leads me to believe that the director chose a number of issues of the long-running manga to adapt at random, but primarilly selected visually. knowing what's going on might somewhat increase appreciation. this reminds me mostly of the kind of stuff they used to play on the mtv show, cartoon sushi, in particular a short that features a cat chasing a man's severed butt-cheek around the house. only in this case the cats resemble hello kitty more and their adventure is expanded to include death and reincarnation and a number of other themes [though not all that easy to tell what's going on]. the dvd of this has director's commentary and a \"making of\" features, but i cant comment on those because i didnt get around to them. i'm giving this a 8/10 for now, here isnt much to compare it to in anime, and i hope for more like this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c8e30179c5c470cb644d695ff509d75", "input": "Review: Don't understand how these animated movies keep coming out, and no matter how good (or bad) it is people love it.I saw this movie with my two kids (5,7). They like pretty much anything animated (like most people who rated this film). The theater was almost full, and I looked forward to seeing the movie with its superb cast. To tell the truth I was bored silly. It was unbelievably predictable and just plain unfunny. There were a couple chuckles throughout the film and that was it. Of course they tried time and time again to get the cheap laugh, but just didn't work. My son almost always says to me that he wants the DVD after we see an animated movie, but not on this one. My daughter fell asleep half way through. Also, the kids thought the character animation looked weird. I haven't heard that from them since seeing The Polar Express, which gave my daughter nightmares.Trust me, I'm not the type who looks for the negative in everything. But quality is quality, and like so many animated movies they throw out there, it has very little. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0305ff1f019d45d5b0cb63953b2c000d", "input": "Review: As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: \"What WAS it?\" \"A nightmare...from the past!\"Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4997f0a742b4712bb2c975485aa1d85", "input": "Review: This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.It's probably only considered a classic because \"A Christmas Carol\" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8253e73a7df444818bf073d67789ffe6", "input": "Review: At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love \"Pushing Daisies\" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on \"Pushing Daisies\" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen \"P.D.\", I highly recommend watching it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3bfbd79d7dc45a9982697c6ea690f28", "input": "Review: Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dcb8cf19061a4e4e85a1df537e84e608", "input": "Review: This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la \"War of the Worlds\"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a \"Basic Instinct 3\" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1641a5722a274e99840a11ed77fa7637", "input": "Review: Once again Jet Li brings his charismatic presence to the movie screen in the film Black Mask. In this film Li plays Tsui, an escapee from a super soldier program who seeks to regain the humanity that the program had taken away from him. To do this Tsui decides to become a librarian in order to live a normal and peaceful life, but fate demands that he clean up problems from his past before he can continue to seek peace. Other members of the super soldier program had escaped at the same time as Tsui, but they want to get even with the world rather than find inner peace. Thus Tsui becomes the only thing that can prevent his former team mates from releasing information that could cost many innocent people their lives. This film screams across the screen at a frantic pace and never lets its audience go. The martial arts is amazing, but because it uses wires it may not be appreciated as much as it deserves by American audiences. If you like action movies that have an interesting story and demand good acting performances because they deal with psychological as well as physical conflicts, then Black Mask is for you. I am glad to see that some of Jet Li's movies are finally getting main stream release in the United States and look forward to seeing how the changes that that release will require (things like dubbing and soundtrack) will affect the film. This is one of Li's best films, go out and see it on May 14 when it is released in America. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7322137d5b394972a8e9f6ab88c38b84", "input": "Review: Mark Hamill should have felt mighty embarrassed with CORVETTE SUMMER! This time, he uses a new kind of \"force\" to regain the possession of his dream machine, a bright red 'Vette. It looks like another sour teen-age flick the first half-hour and does a U-turn in heading for the wrong direction. The writing and directing jobs are dreadfully done, with a few scenes you can't hardly take. You're expecting this to happen anyway, and you're also sniffing the smell of late-70s hodgepodge. Only a former newcomer like Annie Potts would easily steal the show and save this poor movie from the repo creeps! Her impractical but delightful personality holds on to your interest for good, and this is the finest chance to see her in a swimsuit. Hooray for Annie! Sorry, Mark! I guess the Force wasn't with you this time around. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d3c3bbbfb2544db8a7c6c70b2e1bf3c", "input": "Review: i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of \"movie\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-71ac73594e7e464f906308fcaf3143c4", "input": "Review: Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those \"OMG, 5 minutes another song\" movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.A parody of all the dreams you've ever had.......... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-256539a611494ea68c0bbe753b5cabf7", "input": "Review: the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham-fisted and cliché ridden.I cant blame the actors, but surely someone must have said \"are you joking I cant say this!\"This episode had a press perspective and police perspective, while the police perspective was standard enough, the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable.I notice that this was an HBO co production, if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light,I was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and I am still waiting for the suspense.Skip Five Daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top.This story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable.For a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions.so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour.I then began looking for Journalists called \"Scoop\" and for Perry White to make an appearance.I saw the 2009 Hunter before \"five days\"made it to Australia, not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to Bonneville and McTeer going around again.Head shakingly awful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad63d2e4625d448483e219eb0d1d82ce", "input": "Review: Vonnegut's words are best experienced on paper. The tales he weaves are gossemar, silken strands of words and expressions that are not easily translated into a world of Marilyn Manson or Jerry Bruckheimer explosions. His words have been treated well once before, in the remarkable Slaughterhouse-5.Mother night is probably one of the three novels Vonnegut has written I could take to a desert island, along with Slaughterhouse-5 and Bluebeard.The film version deserves a 10, but the books are so permanently part of my interior landscape that I just can't do it...some of the scenes left out of the film are part of my memory... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-992fdb4607fe4b0fa53d5f2338d44539", "input": "Review: Having not seen the films before (and not being able to stand Matt Damon), I was reluctant to go see The Bourne Ultimatum when we were asked to see it for AS Film Studies. However, I was pleasantly surprised that even a film with Damon in it could be enjoyable. Fast fight scenes, crazy motorbike chases and BIG explosions were what threw you out of your seat in TBU. The near-misses between the CIA and Bourne kept you on your toes and throughly entertained.Nevertheless, several things really grated my cheese.Firstly, the fact that the film was just a series of Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA. This sequence got repetitive and ultimately dull. Although Damon did keep us entertained and seemed always one step ahead of the CIA, I was getting a bit annoyed with the constant survival of Bourne. He crashed a car and got out as if he had tapped it or something! Very unrealistic.And secondly (inevitably) - the SHAKY CAMERA. It was so shaky it was completely noticeable and made me and everyone who went to see it in my class (even the tutors) seasick. We were told by the tutors that if we ever used that in a film we made in class, it would automatically be wrong and we would be told to use a tripod. Fair enough if Greengrass wanted it to look like we were there watching Damon and Stiles holding a conversation, but surely we wouldn't be shaking our heads that violently!But all in all TBU is an enjoyable film and worth a watch. But I didn't think it was the best film of the year, despite being an entertaining piece of cinema.8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09980af109e040dd9864f1715126cf81", "input": "Review: clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. \"hula\" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend \"hula.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a5d96f260c04383b2fff5be1dfea91c", "input": "Review: Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!The real gem however is the incredible \"Smooth Criminal\" video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18304ccaa20849a2a5cf82ca2b1da812", "input": "Review: Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.4 out of 10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d169ddc7ca645a9b965ca9e4405c135", "input": "Review: I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a252f1d68db4dc085d02c81a285e14d", "input": "Review: Wow, I can't believe people consider this a 'good' movie. Now, I have seen much worse, but there are much more romantic/funny comedies with John Cusack.This is a mediocre film at best. While the acting wasn't terrible, but not great, for a romantic comedy, there was little passion, little romance. There were many loose ends that don't show up or are not addressed. Unfortunately, the main characters do come off as complete cowards. They don't know themselves well enough to realize that they don't love the people they are engaged to. How do we know they aren't in love? By the utter lack of remorse both characters have for leaving their finances. I can think of few things more romantic than the continual escape from commitment that these two show.The movie doesn't even end with a wedding scene, more than likely both will get cold feet and drop each other like hot potatoes once a commitment is nearing. This movie is really about two people who can't commit to anything, unlike Cusack's previous characters, who were more than willing to make a deep commitment (Loyd in Say Anything, Martin in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.).The greatest failure of this movie was the complete lack of any twists turns, or anything of interest. When the movie ended, I felt like they had failed to include a climax to the story, which basically fits the whole movie: boring. No suspense about whether the two will end up together, no joy when they do, no consequences to their actions.It is sad that people are so blind to the shoddiness of this movie, that they simply rebuke any criticism with 'Everyone is too Cynical!'. Criticism of this movie is not cynicism, simply unbiased examination. There are many other better romantic comedies, even ones with Grace Kelly, or Eva Marie Saint.If you think this movie is great, try these movies, you hearts will explode: The Princess Bride, Say Anything, Grosse Pointe Blank, High Fidelity, Keeping the Faith, Charade, Rear Window, North by Northwest, or There's Something About Mary (which is a good examination of idealized romance vs. today's society). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ccc2192204054e179d637daeff725528", "input": "Review: While it certainly wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, it was certainly worth the $8 (which can't be said for many movies these days.)This was a pleasant account of a true story, although many of the details of the real story were twisted for the movie, (ie, Billy Sunday's character was three or four people in the real story combined together.) Robert DeNiro was of course good, and Cuba Gooding, Jr., was also impressive. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2db5009416834a4ea2551a44432b91a7", "input": "Review: Once in a while, a film comes along that raises the bar for every other film in its genre. A film of this caliber will influence many films following its release for years to come. `A Chinese Ghost Story' falls in this category. It is arguably one of the best horror films made during the 1980's; possibly one of the best ever made.The filmmakers have crafted a movie that appeals to every horror fan. The story is engrossing and original. The villains are appropriately menacing and frightening. The sets are creepy and atmospheric. There is even a little blood and gore to satisfy the splatter fan of the house. But don't let the `horror' label scare you off, if you're not a fan of the genre. This film easily fits into many different categories.The screenwriter has deftly blended the drama, comedy, horror, kung fu, and romance genres into a delicious deluxe cinematic pizza. `A Chinese Ghost Story' is a beautiful epic love story told, thankfully, without the gratuitous nudity and/or explicit sex scenes that have ruined many Hollywood `love stories'. Those put off by the romantic elements of the story can sit back and revel in the fast-paced swordplay and `wire-fu'. If that's not enough, actors Leslie Cheung and Wu Ma provide enough humorous situations to satiate your appetite for comedy. This film offers something for every film fan.Director Siu-Tung Ching and Producer Tsui Hark assembled a truly amazing cast for this film. Leslie Cheung proves that he is not only a gifted actor, but also a talented singer and a charming physical comedian. I cannot possibly think of a performer other than Cheung who could have portrayed Ling Choi Sin better (except maybe Chow Yun Fat). Joey Wang is enchanting as Lit Su Seen, the enslaved spirit who steals the heart of Cheung's character. Her portrayal of the title character is truly haunting and memorable. Wu Ma is hilarious as the cantankerous Taoist who aids the young lovers.On technical level, this film is very impressive, even by today's standards. The direction is superb. I wish that today's Hollywood executives would seek out talented artists like Siu-Tung Ching rather falling back on the usual MTV video or Pepsi commercial `directors'. The cinematography is gorgeous. You have to commend any cinematographer who can make a film look good when most of its pivotal scenes take place in the dead of night. The special effects make-up is top-notch. In fact, most of the creature effects in this film blow away the shoddy CGI ghouls and goblins that have become commonplace in modern horror films.Since its release, \"A Chinese Ghost Story\" has spawned two worthy sequels, a full-length animated movie, and countless imitations. None of the films that followed it or copied it were able to capture the magic of this classic, however. This film is required viewing for any horror fan or just anyone looking for great way to spend 95 minutes of your time. 10 out 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d0ad05795664c34bf70056b962e1a33", "input": "Review: If in the 90's you're adapting a book written in the 50's, set the bloody thing in the 50's and not the '90's. See, 40 year old mores and values tend not to play as well, or ring as true, that far down the road. It's a simple rule that Hollywood habitually keeps violating. And that's the problem with this film. It should have been set in the era it was written in. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but nooo. I'd elaborate, but bmacv's comment spells it out quite well. I'll limit my commentary to Rachel Ward. She looks like she dieted her ass completely out of existence for this role. As a result, she looks like a crack ho' on chemotherapy, and is about as sexy as a gay leather couch in drag. I found her \"I could die at any moment\" look quite disconcerting, and it greatly detracted from her supposed \"hotness\" and the \"sexual tension\" the film intended to create. Other than that, the film was quite good; a 7+ out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-efa7c59b953345819eade32359dcd01b", "input": "Review: This is a very dramatic and suspenseful movie. There are many plots and turns. The story or the director opens question marks on the death row or presumed crimes committed by black people. This film is very well directed by Arne Glimcher and the fine sound of James Newton Howard is excellent. Strong performance of Sean Connery and Ed Harris. If you liked this one don´t miss \"TRUE CRIMES\" or \"THE HURRICANE\". My wife and me gave 8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4aa32e8c39df449da9f24e48d17f0fca", "input": "Review: This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c3015ec7570f4fde9edc7be0f47fcea9", "input": "Review: Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-91706416e6a04509acdf220a69c05bfe", "input": "Review: My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db8302026cbf485bb54ea2d9181b5700", "input": "Review: This oddity in the new DORIS DAY COLLECTION doesn't really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. What she does do however, is shine when she's on screen. The near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some Warner contract players of the day. JANCIE RULE shows promise and it's a shame she didn't become a big star. RUTH ROMAN handles the role of the \"go-getter\" with aplomb. Better if this was in color. The Travis Air force base locations with some rear projection work well. What's best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. If you enjoyed THANK YOUR LUCKY STARS and Hollywood CANTEEN you'll like this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c60c685da5548328e968d34db3ee27d", "input": "Review: I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-46e41b6ac4b24ddaaee4e8591ebb66ec", "input": "Review: Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the \"newsreel\" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment (\"that'll be good!\" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a7af1e19b2143b2be8e0b94b8b1003c", "input": "Review: When I first saw this film on cable, it instantly became one of my favorite movies. I'm a big fan of James Earl Jones and Robert Duvall. The movie paints an accurate picture of the South and the racist attitudes. Most of the attitudes came from Soll, an old plantation owner who uses convicts for labor. Soll is what makes the move, his funny ramblings give us insights in to the way The South was back then. I suppose that if Soll lived today he would be diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease. None the less his attitudes towards a little boy who comes to work for him and the convicts is complex. While he has racist views, he's grown to trust some of the convicts who are all black. The two convicts he trusts most are Jackson(Mel Winkler) and Ben(James Earl Jones). The conversations between Ben and Soll are the best in the movie, they have real chemistry. James Earl Jones and Mel Winkler both but in great performances as well as Hass.This movie should have gotten more notoriety. However it's on DVD and worth the money.Rayvyn Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fc7f5e687d54597aa3f36ba58399201", "input": "Review: This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-affaa2858fe345739cc45ff6dc03f60c", "input": "Review: After \"A Dirty Shame\", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this \"Pecker\" sure is a lot better than \"A Dirty Shame\".In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than \"A Dirty Shame\". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than \"A Dirty Shame\". I give this movie a 6.5/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4495e3ff96bc428db300bd6fbb16d8fd", "input": "Review: this movie has a great message,a impressive cast, ellen burstyn, samantha mathis, jodelle ferland( was 4 years old when she made this movie) ellen burstyn and jodelle ferland have both been nominated for best actress in a tv drama at the up-coming emmy awards in new york, peter masterson-director- has been nominated best director tv drama at the emmy awards also. april 1, 2001, jodelle ferland 'Won', best actress in a tv drama, at the young artist awards, in studio city, ca. i can see why they have 3 nominations. mermaid is a true story, during the cridits they have the real family on the set, something you don't see often. you can find mermaid at all blockbuster video stores. do watch it,you'll be glad you did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dfd49ee4bd043338f25e8cd20d07416", "input": "Review: If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to \"Ned Kelly\" as an \"Australian Western.\" For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.Perhaps because we've encountered this \"gentleman bandit\" scenario so many times in the past, \"Ned Kelly\" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.\"Ned Kelly\" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-70e4d8f668fd4ad0a76ad6abe9775b5f", "input": "Review: I loved this mini series. Tara Fitzgerald did an incredible job portraying Helen Graham, a beautiful young woman hiding, along with her young son, from a mysterious past. As an anglophile who loves romances... this movie was just my cup of tea and I would recommend it to anyone looking to escape for a few hours into the England of the 1800's. I also must mention that Toby Stephens who portrays the very magnetic Gilbert Markham is reason enough to watch this wonderful production. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d944cce4319c4e69828951bd6240ff35", "input": "Review: The Straight Story is a multilevel exploration of the goodness and beauty of America. At one level a slow walk through the heartland, it's kind inhabitants, and amber grain, at another level about growing old and remembering what is important(and actively forgetting what isn't). David Lynch gives us time in this movie and helps me to remember that so much can be said with silence. A remarkable movie that will rest gently with me for some time to come. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f028a249fea3421db6834251493f2a25", "input": "Review: I cried my heart out, watching this movie. I have never suffered from any eating disorder, but I think this must be a very true picture.Alison Lohman is excellent! She expresses these feelings amazingly well. My teenage years came back to me so vividly. Anyone who has gone through difficult times as a child or teenager will be able to relate to this movie. I recommend you all to see it!The music is great too - I've now discovered Diana Lorden.I'm also looking forward to seeing Alison Lohman in White Oléander, because I am positive she is perfectly suited for the role as Agnes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb6df21a24f7414584b1c487a64d1819", "input": "Review: That 70s Show is the best TV show ever, period. It's up there with the Andy Griffen Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Simpsons in my book. That 70s Show continued on for 8 seasons, all of which focus around a group of teenagers/young adults dealing with relationships, separating from their parents, and their overall futures.The two main characters, Eric and Donna, are two teenagers living next door to each other. They have been living next door to each other for most of their lives, and just begin to feel more feelings for each other at the beginning of the first season. A large amount of the show revolves around how their relationship is working.Two other characters, Red and Kitty, are Eric's parents. Red was in the service, so he really pushes Eric around. Kitty is just the opposite. Even though she drinks heavily, she treats Eric and his friends with a lot of care. Bob, their neighbor, is obviously Donna's Dad. Bob giggles around with several different women throughout the coarse of the show's story. Bob also annoys Red to his full extent.The remaining character, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie, are Eric's friends. They also play a major role in the show's story.Well, the First Season is great. This is when the characters are beginning to feel new things for each other. The First Season is original, funny, and enjoyable.The Second Season is good, although it isn't as good as the first. It is a basic continuation of the First. Eric and Donna are together, and everything is working out great.The Third Season is my favorite. It went back and captured the First Season feel and humor. I also think that the character chemistry improved a bunch, making the show all that more fun to watch.The Fourth Season isn't near as good. Eric and Donna Arne't together in this one, making the show slightly less pleasurable. It is still funny, although I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons.The Fifth Season is the last season I enjoyed all the way through. It is the gang's Senior Year, so that really helps with the story. The Fifth Season also had the best ending out of all the seasons.The Sixth Season is good for the most part. It is extremely funny, although it doesn't capture the feel that the other seasons did. The gang is out of High School, so I believe that it didn't hit the teen feel that the previous seasons did. I also didn't like the last three or four episodes considering that they had a major drama feel to them.The Seventh Season captures the same feel that the 5th season had in a way, although it didn't do it all the way. I enjoyed the Seventh Season as I did all the others, and the ending is great.The Last Season flat out sucked. Eric wasn't in it, which ruined it. Kelso wasn't in it for the most part either, which didn't help. I hated the Eighth Season up until the last episode. I thought that the last episode was really good, and a fitting ending to the series.So overall, if you enjoy comedy, give That 70s Show a try. They stopped making new episodes, but it is still on TV a bunch. I also recommend buying Seasons 1-7. It is up to you if you want to buy Season 8. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-255bba3c4e0d4ae4997e0e777288a04c", "input": "Review: Ahh, Talespin! What can I say that hasn't already been said about this great show? Nothing! This is without a doubt one of the most well-written shows I've ever encountered, live-action or animation. The newer stuff is way too dumbed down for my tastes, and some of the \"mature\" stuff I have to shoo kids out of the room for. But not Talespin.The stories are engaging and very plausible. Some of them could even be stretched out to an hour or two for a movie. Episodes like Stormy Weather and Her Chance to Dream are very dramatic while still being enjoyable for kids and adults alike. Then there are the pure comedy episodes such as the Bluest of the Baloo Bloods and Stuck on you, where the emphasis is on hilarity. I can laugh myself to tears in a few choice ones.The drama aspect is very lacking in most shows nowadays(at least, those which aren't specifically geared toward it), especially in cartoons. In the episode Stormy Weather for instance, Kit Cloudkicker decides that he's going to join an air circus, but Baloo believes that it would be too dangerous. In the biggest fight of the episode, Baloo yells at Kit to stay away from Daring Dan, to which Kit screams \"NO! You can't tell me what to do! YOUR'RE *NOT* *MY* *DAD*!\" and buries his face in his pillow. The next day he leaves for the air circus. This kind of drama is a rarity in a cartoon, and would be most welcome in the ones created nowadays.The Characters have a lot of depth to them. Baloo is pretty much the way he is in The Jungle Book, plus or minus a few degrees of laziness. Rebecca is a cunning business woman whose ideas on getting money, while good in theory, are seldom good in practice. Molly is a cute little girl, but you can't let that deceive you. She can be a real hellion sometimes. Kit Cloudkicker is a darker character than the rest. He doesn't trust adults much unless they appeal to him, and he has a tendency to break off relationships. Watch his expression in Plunder and Lightning when he grabs the grappling hook: he looks as though he's prepared to put it right through a pirate.In the end, it's the drama combined with the very real chemistry between the characters that makes this show #1 in my book. The relationship between Baloo and Kit is very real, almost father and son. This is demonstrated well in All's Whale That Ends Whale when Baloo takes Kit's word for it that Seymour is abusing the animals in his aquarium instead of siding with the other adults. Baloo and Becky's relationship is also realistic, due to Baloo's motivation for working comes from wanting to buy back the ol' Sea Duck, not necessarily a desire to help Rebecca. But something tells me that if he did get the Duck back he'd still do jobs for Rebecca.The Sea Duck, not to mention all the other planes in the series, is pretty realistically designed. The plane's functions don't change once throughout the series(continuity like that is hard to come by also), and unlike most other \"super-planes\" of other cartoons, it doesn't have one single weapon on board(unless you count mangoes!), and relies instead on it's cunning pilot's great skill to get out of trouble. It's hard to think of a hero vehicle that doesn't have some sort of gun turret, laser cannon, or even a handgun somewhere on board. And the fact that they use their heads to get out of trouble is so hard to find in a cartoon nowadays. Plus it's just such a darn cool design!This is definitely the best cartoon. Ever. Period. Definitely worth all ten stars! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bba2b9264c7844c68d9265e7ec930939", "input": "Review: \"Night of the Living Homeless\" was a fairly strong finish to the first half of Season 11. Obviously a parody of various zombie movies, most notably Dawn of the Dead, this episode parallels the homeless with the living dead, as creatures who feed and thrive off of spare change rather than brains.Kyle is blamed for the sudden mass outbreak of homeless people when he, out of the goodness of his heart, gives a $20 to a homeless man in front of his house. More homeless people begin to infiltrate South Park, until the town is completely overrun with them. This is a very strong Randy Marsh episode, as he assumes the role of the shotgun-wielding leader of the adults who take refuge on the roof of the Park County Community Center. But before Randy makes it to the community center, he is accosted by hundreds of homeless people while hilariously screaming \"I don't have any change!!\" Unfortunately, the refugees end up losing Gerald Broflofski to the homeless, when he tries to escape by catching a bus out of town, and unwittingly tosses away all his change for the bus to distract the homeless people. Then he becomes one of them, asking everyone for change.The boys attempt to find out why there are so many homeless people in South Park, and find a man who is a director of homeless studies. They find out that the nearby city of Evergreen used to have a similar problem with the homeless, so they escape to Evergreen to find out what they did to solve the problem. Unfortunately, homeless people break into the man's house, and he attempts to take the easy way out by shooting himself. However, he fails several times, as he shoots himself in the jaw, in the eye, in the chest, in the neck, in the shoulder, screaming horribly until he finally dies. This scene may have been funnier had a similar scene not happened in \"Fantastic Easter Special\" two weeks ago.Meanwhile, a member of the refugees discovers that due to the homeless problem, the property values have nosedived, thus the bank has foreclosed on his house, making him homeless. Randy immediately turns on him, holding the gun to the man's head. When the man finally begs the others for a few bucks to help him out, Randy pulls the trigger.In Evergreen, the boys find out that the citizens of the town sent the homeless to South Park, and that the passing of homeless from town to town happens all over the country. The boys modify a bus that leads the homeless out of South Park and takes them all the way to Santa Monica, California.The zombie movie parallels and the great Randy Marsh lines make this one definitely re-watchable. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc9b4fce99b9481abc088f9da866d4dc", "input": "Review: Follow-up to 1973's far better \"Cleopatra Jones\" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b81eab4db6f047a6994da4ad5524ae7d", "input": "Review: This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie.. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc66d59545074af9b9476a6155fe5332", "input": "Review: I approached this film with low expectations but was very pleasantly surprised. It is very well done and it beats hands down the ballroom dancing movies of recent years, especially \"Strictly Ballroom\". While the music is nice and the dancing colourful, for me the movie is not about dancing. It is about the very Japanese institution that gives male office workers long commutes to work and free time after work for entertainment that does not involve their families. Here we have the man with the complete family and the large mortgage and a flagging zest for life. He is drawn to the attractive image of a young woman in a dance studio he passes during his commute and this leads him to try ballroom dancing. Also Japanese is the fact that the lecherous motives that initiated his new passion are made plain but somehow accepted, at least eventually, by family and audience. Attitudes to ballroom dancing, as conveyed in the film, are definitely non-Western, though the discipline and the music are clearly cultural imports to Japan. The cultural contrasts are thus intriguing. Even without the cultural insights, the colour, the dance and the enthusiasm of the players all make this a fun film to watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5a0fe492c954b35bdc8af727f392d00", "input": "Review: This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think \"Police Academy 7\" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.If only I could get my 90 minutes back... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a0780af21744fdfa02ea1097b146d51", "input": "Review: I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the \"films\" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is \"good enough\" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think \"At least I accomplished SOMETHING\" or \"Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself\". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment \"the worst movie ever made\".Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think \"I can do better than THAT\" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3f9c51fd9dd4e0cb1baff13b1799dd5", "input": "Review: I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the \"shocking\" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. \"Italians\" and \"rip-offs\", two words that go together very well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6ab9d9d4b73a4cce9c0605743d29a548", "input": "Review: Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed \"Butch\" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from \"The Wizard of Oz\" are played here in instrumental versions: \"We're off to see the Wizard\" and \"Somewhere over the rainbow\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c9b757d62134279abb7e7825f51df54", "input": "Review: Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.Bad mistake.The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: \"This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be.\"Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:() Coherent,() Interesting or engaging,() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a \"cool, modern, self-aware art-form\",() Hopefully better than \"The Idiots\".As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible \"plot\" \"twists!!!\" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn(x) So up its own behind with the whole \"I'm really smart, me\" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,(x) A genuine waste of my time.As for the undoubted ability of some people to \"get\" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the \"Genius is only recognised by the enlightened\" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.For me and many, many more people, its garbage. Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. \"The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All\"And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8a6adaa076e347919b00adf8ad37e895", "input": "Review: Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe65a3d9739b434798ce0e305398066c", "input": "Review: \"The Grudge\" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27aaa9c3225247b185c5f9fe3c21661e", "input": "Review: This remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as \"Weeds\". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.The worst? The \"Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The \"He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-14376f06f158471e9a2ce2418aa047e0", "input": "Review: People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and \"Little\" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father \"Big\" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a \"family comedy.\" What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a \"guilty pleasure\" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eba4811356a44bd9a58de2d9b504ed5f", "input": "Review: \"Hatred of a Minute\" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch. \"Hatred\" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side. \"Hatred\" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like \"Dark Tomorrow\" and \"Biker Zombies.\" Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget. However, \"Hatred\" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt. However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and \"Hatred\" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering \"Kill her! Kill em' all!\" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun. That's the place where \"Hatred\" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9cd7ecc4ec8e4763a37ac4fb010e6482", "input": "Review: Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-92ff02382d3a4bce8f9a680c364a10f4", "input": "Review: \"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow\" appears to take place in a spotless netherworld, an era long gone by, where the biggest sin a kid could commit would be in defying the law and getting a traffic ticket. It opens with a young female auto fanatic getting the business from her arch rival, who pressures her into a car race. That's about it for the drag-racing--this B-flick is mostly concerned with rock 'n roll, man! The folks at American International were obviously fond of decent, square teens who liked to party and yet didn't mind an adult chaperone. There are a few amusing double entendres and fruity exchanges (Necking Kid: \"We thought we'd come out for some fresh air\"...Dad: \"Where did you think you'd find it, down her throat?\"), but the ghost is a little late in arriving. Brief at 65 minutes, the movie cheats us with a climactic car race that actually takes place off-screen and a pre-\"Scooby Doo\"-styled unmasking which makes no sense. However, for nostalgia buffs, some mindless fun. ** from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-480bc5d16938484588b9cdf9abc14c69", "input": "Review: Has anyone been able to buy this movie? My Uncle \"Hutch\" was a Real (not Reel) pilot who is seen tossing his wings in the air and then snatching them with his fist as he was awarded his pilot's wings. He's only on screen a few seconds but my family would love to have the movie. He was killed in a dogfight over Italy, he was only 24 at the time. Do we know the film studio that made it?Or has anyone seen it at a video store, like Blockbuster? I wish they would make entire catalogs of these old movies available as it is so cheap to make DVD's these days.Please email me at nfny40@yahoo.com if you know where I can buy a copy. Thank you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa5142d96ec3472c8d1b30886cb8d3ca", "input": "Review: This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but \"She is raped\" \"They laugh to her\" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2d1bcad04fb4ce0a7f2daf37b6d30bf", "input": "Review: I was probably one of the few Australians not watching the tennis when this series aired. I have to say when William McInnes first appeared I though, that is one crappy actor! But as the series continued he toned down his performance and I totally loved him. He was such a rotten guy but he did make me laugh. I watched the show to see Hugo Speers (Heart and Bones, The Full Monty) and Tom Long (SeaChange, Two Hands). It was interesting to see Speers play a nice, quiet man and even more interesting to watch Tom Longs' rippling muscles! Sigh... Seriously, Long's performance was a total shock and really brilliant. He stole the show. Martin Sacks was good also in a small role, and the leading actress put in an entertaining performance. I'd recommend this programme if you enjoy stories with a twist and watching Tom Long walk around with no shirt on... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e05f3a2ec81a403893bde3a7d3b2a076", "input": "Review: No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3da54eb94b814d15b7636e89d226c391", "input": "Review: In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting \"Give us back our husbands\". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, \"I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it\". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, \"there was nothing we could do\". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-240d25b204014d6c84306023cd4c2f41", "input": "Review: I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6cede25cd7434b6faa1ac69fd37b9640", "input": "Review: The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book \"Star Trek Memories,\" this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in \"Plato's Stepchildren,\" play music with Hippies in \"the Way to Eden\" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best \"unusual and high quality shows\" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, \"All Our Yesterdays\" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.' Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db2bf425f77f41469d177c17b970da85", "input": "Review: Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.Overall 7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2110a8ffa5ac4088be0f859493d86256", "input": "Review: The nearest I ever came to seeing this was a clip shown at a Gerard Philippe exposition in Paris about two years ago. I had no interest in the remake and having just caught up with the original just over half a century after it was made I can only conclude that the inept fencing was intentional, aimed at a long obsolete target. Hollywood had been doing realistic sword fights since the 30s when the greatest of them all, Basil Rathbone, crossed foils with Errol Flynn and others so the technique was available and so that leaves only satire. After a while you don't notice and revel in the Henri Jeanson dialogue reminiscent of the Prisoner Of Zenda, both versions. Gerard Philippe certainly had the presence to bring off a role like this and Gina Lollabrigida was probably a tad better than Martine Carol, the other obvious candidate at the time. The print I saw was particularly bad and at one point broke down completely so maybe a DVD version would enhance it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d15ef88c24f4997be70055b66b3d707", "input": "Review: Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those \"Carnosaurs\" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says \"What was that?\"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34375a341c9c4cad8832dfca2cb18455", "input": "Review: \"Who Done It?\" contains many surefire laughs and gags. It is not only one of the best Stooges films with Shemp, it is one of the finest short comedies Columbia produced. Director Bernds originally wrote the screenplay in 1946 for the Stooges, but when Curly Howard suffered a career-ending stroke, it was tailored for the Columbia comedy team of Schilling and Lane (their version was released as \"Pardon My Terror.\") It obviously was too good for the Stooges to pass up, and it was finally filmed by the Stooges at the end of 1947.Old Man Goodrich calls ace detectives Shemp, Larry, and Moe out of fear that he will be murdered. When they arrive at his home, Goodrich has disappeared, and his niece and assorted goons try to get rid of the Stooges. Will they find Goodrich and bring the niece and goons to justice? Shemp is particularly funny in this film. His reactions after being given a mickey by Christine McIntyre are superb; he gives his trademark sound (eeeb-eeeb-eeeb) and Miss McIntyre is noticeably trying not to laugh! Other funny scenes: the close-up of Moe's mug looking through the camera lens; and the in-the-dark fight with all cast members involved.Nikko the goon (played by Duke York) is one of the most unusual looking characters ever portrayed in a Stooges film. With his kinked hair, he could almost pass for a Stooge, if he didn't tower over everyone else! \"Who Done It?\" is a gem among the Stooges films with Shemp. Even die-hard Curly fans will enjoy this one! A true Stooge classic. 9 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ef3d90e462b4326b0d485b0918fbdb2", "input": "Review: When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-89d3d0b1c540478b87b57e03bb14c464", "input": "Review: I saw this film in Winnipeg recently - appropriate, given the location used. I first read Lawrence's book back in the 70's and for me, it's always been a very powerful picture of the trials of aging in our society. It resonated when I was young, and it resonates even more now. When the film came out, I was keen to see if the story could survive. and was thoroughly impressed, especially with Ellen Burstyn's performance. She manages to give us a complete human being, even though the character is generally cranky and judgmental - someone that you wouldn't want to live with. It's great to be able to see favourite characters come to life so authentically. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e4eefc3f9f24aa2a6341ae59d8589b7", "input": "Review: This one-minute film is arguably the first movie ever made. Other inventors had previously filmed actions - like Edison's motion photography of a sneeze - but the Lumiere brothers developed equipment that tremendously advanced the medium. At the time, of course, their `cinematograph' must have bewildered their peers, including their subjects. In this first instance, the brothers record employees leaving their factory, some of whom understandably struggle to hide their awareness of the camera. The Lumieres attempt to make the film more entertaining by introducing animals and a bicycle, but `La Sortie Des Usines Lumiere' doesn't nearly match the ingenuity of their later films. The most interesting aspect of this short film is the brothers' selection of a familiar working class ritual as their subject. Their choice is the initial evidence of their curiosity about all of the world's people, a quality that makes viewing their experiments immensely rewarding and fascinating today.Rating: 8 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c05ef8d5c08461ab45c492c6fa52993", "input": "Review: Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f89eecec9fc4f03bc720584460eb600", "input": "Review: The true measure of any fictional piece of work is whether or not the characters grow from their experiences and emerge from the experience altered in some significant way (note that this change need not be positive or beneficial) at the end.By that measure, Enchanted April is a resounding success. As a film in general, it succeeds quite well-excellent ensemble cast, well-developed characters you come to care about, wonderful script and beautiful sets and locations. In short the film is, well, enchanting. Although all the performances are first-rate, three must be mentioned-Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent and Joan Plowright. It says something when Miranda Richardson does her usual fine work and yet is overshadowed by so many others in the cast. Most highly recommended, particularly if you are a romantic at heart. Further Deponent Saith Not. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e283e8c364ac43db8116f79e9ce4e0d9", "input": "Review: I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96980e6166cb4795b34450eb00fef4db", "input": "Review: I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective \"jump\" moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The \"edge of dreamland\" muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile (\"Cujo\"?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, \"I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at\" look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the \"Witch Mountain\" movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about \"Blade Runner\". :-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4c396d24b0d4752949668153b38bdf8", "input": "Review: i thought this movie was wonderfully plotted it made me confused and my cousin who watched it with me.to tell the truth i think that the younger kevin dillon was hot.hahahaha...but i also thought the girl was stupid to go along with the cop and that was wrong what he said to her before his death\"i was inside you\".i think that's what she gets for doing what she did with him and how is he going to tell her that she's too young when he never cared how old the other girls were.?now i don't think i myself could ever trust a cop like that.but to tell the truth it was pretty obvious it was him even if he was wanting to become a cop i would still be suspicious of him either way.and that was funny when she sprayed him in the eye in the store.hahahahaha.she was still stupid for going into the warehouse again by herself and so was the cop who died HELLO!! it's called back-up.sometimes these movies make me mad when people act stupid and do stupid things.but that's what i think an thought about the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a6114e3f24b42c0bda26ba0b7ca4ee1", "input": "Review: If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: * While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators –even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b063e2cd37b473c8cbd65177ca2ec6f", "input": "Review: One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b7b67c12f4841379bb9b101004fd4de", "input": "Review: I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a8b2469711649a3bbc1dffb57e1ecd1", "input": "Review: The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.' Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a3c9c4a0eb2449fa3d0a89cf49c5101", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76a29a2eb87e49fc868d966da0e74b39", "input": "Review: \"Gespenster\" Question of to be cool in the German cinemaThere are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film \"Gespenster\" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8f1df2a6b6d0444b80869f4c8002119c", "input": "Review: Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-458221ceebe34e3da78b3e9cda9364bb", "input": "Review: This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae616411599b46dc918ddedcb2b02df7", "input": "Review: I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d02848dc0024f5bb6b949d7ed51fabd", "input": "Review: This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffb7ce4255314217a7f6d9b2d373b264", "input": "Review: Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.The \"deeper\" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra (\"knowledge belongs to mankind\") represents.Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e583a789aaf84150b8690b9965d2e879", "input": "Review: Probably Bigas Luna's finest achievement for it achieves a delicate balance between sleaze, eroticism and surrealism. The delicious Mathilda May, who spent most of Tobe Hooper's \"Lifeforce\" in the buff, is the object of young Biel Duran's pre-teen lust. He can't get May's breasts out of his mind and wants so badly to suckle them and suckle the breasts of his own mother, too. His pursuit of May IS the film. As in Luna works such as \"Lulu\" and \"Jamon! Jamon!\", the director brings a slightly warped sexual sensibility to his strange but beautiful tale. The usual suspects will be offended, but those with open minds will enjoy this frothy erotic poem to the female breast. José Luis Alcaine's images are gorgeous and Nicola Piovani's score is sweet and rich. A gorgeous cinematic confection with a delightfully anarchic sensibility that the Spanish do so naturally. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-74e639b075cb400882b43751765aa12e", "input": "Review: As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like \"he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages\" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-58a2b4d64bb14187bcbbefb1df038912", "input": "Review: Mitchell Leisen's fifth feature as director, and he shows his versatility by directing a musical, after his previous movies were heavy dramas. He also plays a cameo as the conductor.You can tell it is a pre code movie, and nothing like it was made in the US for quite a while afterwards (like 30+ years). Leisen shot the musical numbers so they were like what the audience would see - no widescreen shots or from above ala Busby Berkeley. What I do find funny or interesting is that you never actually see the audience.As others have mentioned the leads are fairly characterless, and Jack Oakie and Victor McLaghlan play their normal movie personas. Gertrude Michael however provides a bit of spark.The musical numbers are interesting and some good (the Rape of the Rhapsody in particular is amusing) but the drama unconvincing and faked - three murders is too many and have minimal emotional impact on the characters. This is where this movie could have been a lot better. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-628fb2c3ce004943b9bf98f40a875f22", "input": "Review: Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e53d1d6f6ec4eaab6b01058d9014083", "input": "Review: Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.Awful.Ridiculous.Waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba70bea0f630442b8f90035b8e524198", "input": "Review: I was reviewing some old VHS tapes I have and came across The TV show John Denver & The Muppets A Christmas Together.This made me go to my computer and look it up to see if I could find a DVD version of this show to buy. I was disappointed not to be able to find it yet on DVD. The show aired in 1979 and was a delightful show. I have the record and the CD but I would love to buy a DVD version of this show. The tape is old and picture quality is pretty good but fading, the sound is not as good as the CD. There is also a few other songs not put on the CD. As a Fan of John Denver and of the Muppets, a DVD of this show would really be a good seller. If you don't have the CD it is a wonderful Chritmas collection of songs taken from that show. The album is also good if you can find it and still have a record player to play it on. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00876cc612ff484d8e425d8de1ee6843", "input": "Review: This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical \"mumblecore\" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to \"figure stuff out\". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22f0690dc30a4144bf17ab3a40f88f1a", "input": "Review: Sometimes I just want to laugh. Don't you? No analyzing, no critiquing and no looking for deeper meaning. Rent this movie, watch it all and laugh your ass off. Don't want to admit you liked it? Fine. But don't trash it here when you and I both know you liked it. It's Damn funny! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-282e9b21ff3b4612978e9d92b1bdb366", "input": "Review: I thought the original of this film was quaint and charming as well as having me sitting on the edge of my seat trying to figure it out.Since I had already seen the original, when I saw this on Sci Fi Channel- I don't know if this remake was deliberately made for Sci Fi - I knew what it was within the first few minutes. Since I like Richard Burgi as a character actor, I wanted to see how he would pull it off.The writers/producers etc, modernized the film a bit by trying to explain the plight of the \"aliens\" (They could no longer reproduce their own kind and needed help) using the same pseudo science that has been crammed in our ears in the 90's. Maybe it added a bit of polish to the film, or not.This film. Film? This production takes on a more sinister edge than the original did- The original ended with a confrontation between the young woman and the alien and an understanding of sorts took place, although no resolution of the Alien's problem.I sort of remember that in this remake, the woman became rather hostile towards the Burgi/Alien- I think it could have ended better. But the ending is just the ending, and the yarn is a swell yarn, being of the basic 1958 Science Fiction Pulp Stock. Many great science fiction stories were written in the 50's and some of them even made it to film.This is a swell thing to watch on like a rainy day or something. I rate it highly cos of all the remakes of old 50's Sci Fi, this one came off well. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit.But if anyone really wants to see this story told WELL, I suggest the original 1958 version with Tom Tyron and Gloria Talbott, directed by Gene Fowler Jr. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a69952b391f94ee1ad00a3128ac1afd7", "input": "Review: Seriously. This is one of the most stupid family shows of all time.Plot- A family without a mother and 3 \"dads\" raise 3 little girls in San Francisco, California.Characters- Neat freak Danny, cartoon loving Joey, hair obsessed Jesse, spoiled brat Michelle, stupid DJ, and almost normal Stephanie. The creators of this show really want you to hate the characters, don't they? Therefore, I do not think anyone should watch this show. I only chuckled at a few moments in the show's whole running, and I think that instead of lethal injection, all criminals should be forced to watch this show, a torture far worse than anything else.1.5/10 or: D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5fc883b8e9b4b87b10a14387ab9e8a4", "input": "Review: Lexi befriends Jennifer, a thin, intelligent girl at her new school. Lexi's parents have just split up. Soon, Jen tells Lexi of her eating disorder, and the two begin dieting and exercising together. They both are in the school's volley ball team. Lexi's mum becomes aware of her daughter's illness, as she is losing lots of weight. Lexi is admitted to hospital. She is diagnosed with Anorexia nervosa, and is made to gain weight. Her father visits her in hospital, and orders a feeding tube. She is better and is allowed out of hospital and she tells her mum that Jen has bulimia. This leads to the two falling out, as Lexi's mum tells Jen's mum her suspicions.At a party Jen is hit by a car, and because her heart is weak it kills her. Lexi's condition worsens, as she blames herself for her best friend's death... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-63862e9f7a3046ac829dbed81fec9457", "input": "Review: This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d93ff846fbd4bb9b4818c76f2290f99", "input": "Review: I agree with \"Jerry.\" It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not \"rip-off\") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his \"mind\", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4100fcc2231847e7bdb82486e2ab8dc9", "input": "Review: Cary Grant and Myrna Loy are perfectly cast as a middle class couple who want to build the house of their dreams. It all starts out with reasonable plans and expectations, both of which are blown to bits by countless complications and an explosion of the original budget.There are many great laughs (even if the story is somewhat thin) sure to entertain fans of the stars or the late 1940s Hollywood comedy style. A definite highlight comes when a contractor goes through a run down of all expenses, which must have sounded quite excessive to a 1948 audience. As he makes his exit, he assures the client (Grant) that perhaps he could achieve a reduction of $100.00 from the total...or at least $50.00...but certainly $25.00. Hilarious! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a1f10fe3ff534d26a1d1f5bc70d73888", "input": "Review: I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79fdabff0ebe4d1999b44aee4f56dc41", "input": "Review: OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-51ff2ae355a1481cac51c49412f7264c", "input": "Review: This is a great story of family loyalty which, thankfully, doesn't resort to the usual tricks (or at least the ones I'm used to seeing in American and European films) of supersentimentality or high dramatic tension.It's very watchable and very lovable. It has some beautiful cinematography, but doesn't rely on that alone to entertain. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-994b3a464b0c4f22a0854aed63b4f4a3", "input": "Review: Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1201c6c7bd834793a328471fb42ec11d", "input": "Review: Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b84acec528649ecbbd43d1d749abbeb", "input": "Review: I think that this film adds to diversity and is very accurate in terms of historic reconstruction. The way it shows the various communities leaving together in Thailand is very interesting...The Portuguese, the Japanese, and the various communities being managed by the king. The plots around the court are as usual a struggle for power with a lot of treason. The wardrobe is fine. The film is also done locally in Thailand in a reasonable production. The scene with the elefant as executors is very interesting. It is fun and I think that is also usable in schools for its historic accuracy because it shows that the European in Asia were subjects of the local kings in way very different from the traditional Hollywood perspective. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6529413dbb348a39099060934697249", "input": "Review: This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f59d89180fa47e5bd0b5cacbbed9f18", "input": "Review: This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c860368fd2d8459dabecb25ee124b7f4", "input": "Review: First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-49ebb625f76e41e6b52a0b07970f0d65", "input": "Review: I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. \"The Perfect Word\" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. \"Fifi's Folly\" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. \"Broken Wing\" (or \"Broken Wind\" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d6ab9ca4aae14cc7a4e9c521b0019980", "input": "Review: I had never thought the standard of Yashraj films would ever degrade to such an extent! The film has a nonsense storyline which catches no interest.Saif has over acted. Kareena has improved her figure, but is not a good actress anyway. Akshay is good. Anil is also good. May I say the role wasn't good..Great deal of cheapness is filled in. Wondered if that was supposed to be the \"comedy part\" of the movie. Just because last few movies were flops does that mean Yashraj films should make this kind of rubbish? It has a history of so many good films. Overall, I was totally disappointed with the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7d28abf8a3446159aedbeb683a1626c", "input": "Review: \"Heartland\" is a wonderful depiction of what it was really like to live on the frontier. The hard work and individual strength that were needed to survive the hardships of the climate and the lack of medical care are blended with the camaraderie and the interdependence of the settlers. The drama was especially meaningful because the story is based on the diaries of real people whose descendants still live there. It was also nice to see the west inhabited by real people. No one was glamorous or looked as if they had just spent a session with the makeup or costume department. Conchatta Ferrell is just wonderful. She is an example of the strong, persevering people who came to Wyoming in the early 20th century and let no hardship stand in their way of a new life in a new land. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21b27257354a4fc68b447bb20644a699", "input": "Review: Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says \"lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away\". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c484f7684bc44eacae5404476e539371", "input": "Review: I don't see how you can say that Freddy's Nightmares is cheesy and a rip-off. You obviously don't know good TV when you see it. The episodes are packed with drama and blood. Freddy is creative in the way he kills people. I love Freddy's Nightmares and I hope to get all 44 episodes on DVD. The best episodes are: Saturday Night Special,School Daze, and Love Stinks. If you think this series sucked then you're entitled to your opinion but remember it's only your opinion and it means nothing. Freddy's Nightmares will always be one of the best series ever and you'll come to accept that fact soon enough. If you don't like it then don't watch it but don't deny it's brilliance. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f72ba87c80f43fc979bfff7445025c6", "input": "Review: I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie .... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e2160a3a53c49a18d7d45fd121c3c0e", "input": "Review: SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a \"lesbian scene\" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!I heard rumors of a sequel.GodHelpUsAll Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b4efe6307e74e65af6542c3b587ce24", "input": "Review: Sometimes you wonder how some people get funding to create a movie as bad as this one. You can only stand about 5 minutes of this utter piece of garbage before you stomp back into blockbuster and demand your money back. I will now look at Michael Clarke Duncan with apprehension...why....he lent his name to this vermin. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee8710e0a407406f8a2d188318f5fb3b", "input": "Review: I've long wanted to see this film, being a fan of both Peter Cushing and David McCallum. I agree that the romantic sub-plot was a waste of time, but the talent of McCallum shines through this juvie role. Thank heavens for Turner Classic which aired the show last week. I can imagine that there were lots of problems with children after the war, especially with the way things were throughout the 1950s. Some of the boys are a bit scary. I certainly wouldn't want to met them on a well-lit street, much less a dark one. There were some good insights regarding the feelings of a firebug as well, or as they call him, a firefly. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-32407f5eb9014e0e9e9a5c374cae4bb2", "input": "Review: This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f1d625433564098a31d52998fa010c7", "input": "Review: This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.Avoid this movie like the plague.c Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fde27eda59b4fbca490fcb49688d32e", "input": "Review: Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3f2f0c30c99f46b5bce752f3fcfa6c0c", "input": "Review: The often misunderstood Zabriskie Point is Antonioni's political film, Antonioni's American film. Stylistically, it follows suit after \"Blow-Up\", meaning that the pace is faster than the previous epics, though certainly no less idiosyncratic.Basically the common mistake is that the film glorifies the hippie generation. Not so.The two protagonists come from vastly different environments. Mark from the \"rebel\" youths, Daria from an estate agency corporation. But in true Antonioni fashion, they are both alienated, both trying to escape their surroundings. Mark leaves a meeting of rebel students and Black Panthers disappointed with the verbose empty rhetoric, while Daria keeps uneasily being on the move with her car.Antionioni, the master director, after portraying the rebelling youth as confused and shallow, then moves to the city. An environment saturated by corporatism, billboard advertisements, meaninglessness, that has to keep expanding to accommodate the similar expansion of the population, generating a profit at the same time. It is this environment that the two protagonists escape from, though it seems mostly out of coincidence.Indeed, when Daria stops by a small village in the outskirts of the desert, the environment is just as suffocating, and the people just as lost cases, best exemplified by an old boxing champion, now reduced to a shadow of himself, sitting around drinking and smoking and talking nonsense. A stunning melancholy sequence, made even more powerful with the inclusion of some half wild children living around, brought in by some \"benefactor\" but \"destroying a genuine piece of American history\". In a not-so-obscure symbolism, there is Antonioni's opinion on the hippies. Just a half-positive glimpse in the canvas of human alienation.And then there is the desert, the landscape used to devastating effect, by turns pure and terrifying, primeval, wild and dead. The sequence where the two protagonists make love, \"joined\" in fantasy by the \"flower\" generation reflects the similar sequence in \"Red Desert\", where Giuliana tells her son a story. It is a colourful intermission in a colourless landscape. A vivid half-fantasy in a suffocating reality.The ending probably belongs to the pantheon of great endings in cinema, the Western civilization blown to pieces. A catharsis, an exorcism.Antionioni's two \"international\" films (the British \"Blow-Up\" and the American \"Zabriskie Point\") are lesser efforts than the previous masterpieces, but that is largely because of the faster pace and the inevitably contrived settings (swinging London, flower-power America). But when it comes down to it, it's clear he hasn't lost the edge. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-22f16fb30b4c4df382f3b8936876c193", "input": "Review: It's hard to believe an \"action\" packed Jet Li movie could be so boring, but this was transcendant trash. The plot is an amalgam of other Hong Kong chopsocky flicks. The martial arts action is all special effects and no human talent. It's a comic book story about a group of super-human soldiers who are to be killed because they're mentally unstable, one of their number (Li) who holds off an incompetent army to save them and rebuilds a life as a pacifist librarian. The saved killers resurface with an Austin Powers quality plot to take over the world, and Li sheds his new life to save the world.The version I saw was dubbed, and that may have accentuated the cheesiness of the wafer-thin plot and comic-book 25 cent special effects. But I suspect even Ninja-Turtle-watching 8-year olds would have found this juvenile and hollow. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a004e315450c45269fe0e236dca6f717", "input": "Review: \"Stories of the Century\" was a half hour series and appeared in first run syndication during the '54-'55 television season. It was also the first western TV series to win an Emmy award. Starring veteran western actor Jim Davis as railroad detective Matt Clark, the series set Clark and his fellow railroad detective partners (Mary Castle as Frankie Adams for the first half of the season and Kristine Miller as \"Jonesy\" during the second half)against historic western outlaws of various periods ranging from the mid-1860's to the early 1900's. The series was very satisfying, easy to watch, and fairly realistic due mainly to the easygoing charm of Jim Davis in the lead role. He seemed like an actual western character. One other note. When Matt Clark would arrive in town after a long ride he actually looked like he had been on a long horse ride as he would be covered in dust.A very good early adult western. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-353fc31d86a54440b1f10afe7b3b77c4", "input": "Review: One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. \"12 Monkeys\" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. \"12 Monkeys\" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-31c4c6530aef486789368135528cc2e6", "input": "Review: I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9cf14a3888684d378ff8989fefd78f40", "input": "Review: The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a \"walker\" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the \"artistic\" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a \"walker\" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it. As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4b1ef42e6a194270b24eafca2d4c178e", "input": "Review: for my opinion, the middle of the film, specially the love scene is a bit too long, but the whole time you can imagine this desert feeling. but the best, what made this film unforgettable are the great explosion pictures, their color, slowmotion and the pink floyd music are unique in filmhistory!destruction in its propper and popular form. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1445b7836268401d8c381a2691aaa382", "input": "Review: It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, \"Paris, je t'aime\" is breathtaking, showing that, as \"Love Actually\" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.With Feist on the background, \"Paris, je t'aime\" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-028909ab762741e2a0fc12e92ed059c0", "input": "Review: When seeing this movie you should take notice to that it´s not a normal movie. It has no real story just characters, a bunch of gangster characters who come together in a perfect harmony. The dialogue is wonderful, you can just lay back and listen. The movie stands out thats why it´s hard to find a right way of describing it.Thats why the user comments on this movie is so mixed.I for one love the movie and recommend it to all who love one-liners and things that differ from the \"normal\". You can´t really put the finger on what´s so wonderful about it it´s just a comical world where gangsters rule. A place of love and danger. A movie that you can see more than one time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d2fd90eaa0e4d46a81898dde78b3aa7", "input": "Review: Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of \"random chance\" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use \"ample\" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing \"melodrama\". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of \"ifs, ands, and buts\". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.Grade: * out of ***** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8038463b3cc4c6a97d657d2efe0f552", "input": "Review: Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? \"I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!\" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-251d4c38f8f04727b9bdd56bc7f7bbad", "input": "Review: I was very surprised with this film. I was touched with the lives that paulie touched along his way to find his \"marie\" the little girl he was separated from. The humor was also very good and it did not hurt the story as i thought it would probably do. Actually i was expecting \"paulie wants a cracker\" jokes to hurt this film but even that was done in a very humorous scene that turns very touching when paulie is in the research lab press room conference. So if you wish to see a good \"animal that talks\" film check this one out, much better than Dr. DOLITTLE in my opinion. PAULIE also has a surprised twist in the end that is done very nicely as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b55887c3b1a4a79b0555d29acd04931", "input": "Review: Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2866c56c25d4e29b98187a73133d62e", "input": "Review: I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-101eb4eef9cc428bac6b959d14d15096", "input": "Review: Marie: You are smooth. Dan: No, I'm not smooth. I'm Dan.If you're anything like me, smooth and single do not go together. You see someone you like, rare enough as that can be, and you want to say something but you don't. Or maybe you do say something but it ends up being perhaps the least intelligent thing you've ever said in your life. More often then not though, you stare from afar and admire without having to deal with taking that which most agree is the only way to get anywhere in life – a risk. You can't blame a guy for being a little frightened though. Maybe he's been burned hard before or maybe he's trying to focus all his energy on his career. There are reasons, some valid, some not, and all of them can be interpreted as excuses rather than reason. You tell yourself you don't need it or it isn't the right time for you but you still wish it were happening. Any way you break it down, it's not easy. Sound familiar? If you thought yes even just a little, then DAN IN REAL LIFE, the new comedy from director Peter Hedges, is a must-see. It will reach inside of you and somehow manage to both break and warm your heart all at once.The Dan from the title is Dan Burns (Steve Carell), an advice columnist who is admired for his insight into living a balanced, fulfilling and morally uplifting life. Four years or so before the film opens on Dan waking up to his day, he lost his wife and love of his life. After that tragedy, Dan was left to raise their three daughters alone. Between that and focusing on his career, finding love again was not one of Dan's priorities. And so he became more functional than feeling. Removed from the power of intimacy, Dan no longer knows what it means to be that close to someone and has resigned himself to never knowing that again. That is, until he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a book and tackle shop in Connecticut on a quiet morning. They're interaction is casual, comfortable and it catches both of them off guard. There is only one problem really. She is already seeing someone. Unfortunately for all involved, that someone is Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook). His entire family has come up to their parents' country home for their yearly visit and Dan must now spend the weekend pining and yearning for the fleeting feeling he had with Marie that morning. It only lasted an hour or so but it only took that long to awaken Dan's heart from its coma.With so many family members to deal with (Jack Mahoney and Dianne Wiest are at the helm), DAN IN REAL LIFE does drift away from its grander purpose from time to time. While the cyclone of kids and parents and aunts and uncles makes for trying times for Dan, Hedges also uses it unnecessarily as a means to distract, with the presumption that it would ultimately make for a more complete film. Luckily, Hedges has got Carell to carry the heavy burden. It is a pleasure to watch Steve Carell come into his own more and more with every picture he makes (despite the occasional EVAN ALMIGHTY-sized misstep). He is charismatic, charming and obviously a sharp humorist. As Dan, he is also self-deprecating, awkward and scared. Carell is the rare comedian who pushes himself to find character in his roles rather than rely solely on his comedic instincts and established persona. Perhaps more importantly, he is entirely relatable as Dan. Whether he's flopping down on the cot in the laundry room where he is subjected to sleep as the only single adult at this reunion or fidgeting around the kitchen, unable to stan d still in his anxiety, Dan is every guy who has even been unsure of himself and felt alone in the crowd. Carell gives Dan so much heart that he becomes the heart of the film itself at the same time.I wondered after seeing the film if I enjoyed the it as much as I did, despite its slight shortcomings (Juliette Binoche – I know you might like to lighten up every now and then but I don't recommend it unless there is chocolate involved), because of where I am in my life. Would someone who has found that someone else derive as much meaning and comfort from this film? I can't say. What I can say, as someone who knows what it means to be lonely, DAN IN REAL LIFE knows what it means to be surprised by life and love and how these moments and people need to be appreciated and cherished. It also knows that anyone who might be feeling lonely on any given day or for months at a time needs to be reminded that surprises still happen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d597edef5b40a2ad446c28f0512c58", "input": "Review: I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcb69705ee574be289690a068794ed07", "input": "Review: very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53f70100ec654028a17087f2960e8ca4", "input": "Review: The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ddd54b5219e1447dad825bfc3f3e57cc", "input": "Review: I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting......and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing \"Happy birthday to Fu\"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, \"Your face-- is familiar.\") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a \"campy\" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it \"right\". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they \"audition\" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people \"audition\" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a \"proper\" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ead7f6b40c24c4495b83a39a2b0baa8", "input": "Review: Some people loved \"The Aristocrats\" and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the \"f\" word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-140ecea1a0014515bac91df344d0838d", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when I was in Israel for the summer. my Hebrew is not fluent, so the subtitles were very useful, I didn't feel lost at any point in the movie. You tend to get used to subtitles after about 5 minutes.This movie blew me away!!!!!! It depicts two of the most prominent taboos in the middle east today: A homosexual relationship between an Israeli and a Palestinian. It allows a person to enter both realms of the conflict simultaneously. The dilemma, the emotions entailed. The movie climaxes in tragedy when anger and rage drive one of the lovers to one extremist side! an absolute must see!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c95da4b5bffa4d9c8e9718ea0f9d0eb9", "input": "Review: At first look of the plot tagline I figured it could have been a decent film. Could I have ever been more wrong? The beginning of the film makes it look like a bunch of freaks got together and decided to make a low budget film. For the first 10 minutes you don't notice the cheesy acting, horrible sound and god-awful special effects, but then it gets worse. Just about 20 minutes into it I was asking myself, \"What was the plot again?\" I could only ask that question when I wasn't busted out laughing from the sheer lameness of this film. The main actor has one setting for emotions and he sticks to it throughout the entire film, even though he was supposed to go through love and hate and everything in-between. The flashback scene almost made me vomit because it made me re-live one extra minute of footage from earlier in the movie. Now we hit the middle of the film where they are obviously trying to rip off Morpheus from \"The Matrix,\" although he is doing just a horrible job. The actor's talking about \"Star Wars\" and fortune cookie phrases is almost unbearable. Now at the end of the movie you don't realize that it's the end of the movie because you actually think the plot is finally developing. The \"Morpheus\" character dies, the ONLY good thing about the movie. He utters a couple words and the credits roll. What is this? No plot, bad acting, cheesy everything, it couldn't get any worse. Please, if you value human decency, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3d8f073726549ae8be7ada71dbf5714", "input": "Review: Cannot believe my eyes when read quite a bunch of other comments and reviews. As if it were a mediocre movie of some run-of-the-mill dudes.The movie is great, funny, crazy, over-the-top violent though with minimum gore, and all the way energetic to the core. Loved every single bit of it. Can't remember anything insane like this made for laughs and martial art showing off. And now the most important thing (at least to me): it is computer effects free. When I watch some Hollywood actors duking it out on screen in modern high-resolution and damn high-budgeted action \"fuflo\" (a Russian word that means \"bull*beep*\"), I understand that any *beep* child can do it - you can adjust the wires to the body, add some cute PC effects, and stuff it into the action film. Here it is different. I don't think that there will be even a dozen of physically advanced action stars worldwide, who can repeat the brawl that takes place at the end of the film or the \"Chinese football\" play. And it is just a little Hong Kong cinema made for fun, not pretending to be \"Star Wars\".Having a DVD with English soundtrack is not a problem with this movie. It does not spoil the atmosphere to me.Can't help mentioning a very neat theatrical play. Some of you, suppose, won't like it. As to me - it's amazing. Have a look at the Dragon's friend who is talking in a brave manner to the criminals and all of a sudden gets a fist punch in his left side of the head. His face expression changes into something whimsical and he comes up to Dragon with a baby expression. And take a look at the menacing size of his mouth - it's nearly from one ear to the other long when he makes grimaces.This movie deserves a higher rating and a thousand comments from people all over the world. Very thankful to our Russian industry for the releases of classic Jackie Chan movies. His modern ones are much weaker in my humble opinion and do not deserve much hype.Total 10 out of 10 - a legendary movie in its genre. Thank you for attention. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-19976a9d024244b29d4f4555f9c1c7a3", "input": "Review: It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful \"Ninotchka\" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's \"Camille\", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the \"chica-choca\" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc0d11df0e7c4fbe853982bb8548a4e1", "input": "Review: don't watch this Serbian documentary and Serbian propaganda look out for this documentary and you will see facts and truth. The Death of Yugoslavia documentary series (of five episodes) is a painstakingly compiled and researched account of the extended mass-bloodshed which marked the end of the old Federal Yugoslavia and spanned almost the entire first half of the 1990's. It includes a huge wealth of news footage and interviews with involved parties both \"Yugoslav\" and otherwise. The only real \"improvement\" which could be made to this amazing achievement would be the inclusion of later developments in the Balkans since the program was made. This was indeed done in the late 1990's for a repeat showing on BBC television, but the addition of some even more recent events would help to complete this admirably detailed and fulsome piece of work. Perhaps another whole episode might be warranted? The very succinct title of this documentary was made all the more appropriate by the eventual abandonment of the term \"Yugoslavia\" by the now-named Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro - a much belated and formal admission of that which occurred years before.not fiction like in \"Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War (1999)\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d83c086d601f427b85eeba0d2a2918a7", "input": "Review: You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as \"Special Guest Star.\" Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the \"Partridge Family\" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for \"Charlie's Angels.\" As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their \"range.\" Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see \"McCloud\" and \"Duel\"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21504a042f514329b374c6cf2c4fd743", "input": "Review: I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of \"Mystery Science Theater 3000\" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fda08e95cb6402aa612b6d7c154e3e6", "input": "Review: I love this movie because I grew up around harness racing. Pat Boone behind the sulky reminds me of my father who was drawn to the trotters because, unlike thoroughbred jockeys, men of normal height and weight can be drivers. Yes, the 1944 Home in Indiana is a better movie, but it's also a very different movie. April Love is light and easy to watch, a feel good movie. (Disappointing though that Pat Boone's religious/moral views prohibited him from ever kissing the girl! Quite a change from today's standard fare.) Home in Indiana with Walter Brennan (filmed in black and white with no hint that anyone will ever burst into song) captures the stress and struggle better thereby making the ultimate accomplishment more satisfying but it requires a bigger emotional investment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41940a6d92b942b29a1e0bfa77a53269", "input": "Review: What was Steven Seagal thinking? I mean firstly I love Seagal. I love all his movies up to the mid 2000s. His early stuff is some of the best in the genre. This however does not live up to its excellent name. Attack Force (with protagonist Marshall Lawson {Seagal}) would be expected to be a mindless action movie with Seagal in typical one-liner ass kicking form. However, what we get is a crime mystery, bordering on a political thriller with little or no action. Seagal is always in shadows because of his weight. I could not follow this story. There's people who mutate to superhumans when they take a drug. What happened in this movie. The dubbing of Seagal is a disgrace, a shambles and a shame. Why dub the man? The story is terrible. This got a 2/10 from me because of the scene where Seagal asks for backup despite having an army with him, and an hilarious fight scene where seagal swings his hands like a girl facing the camera! \"Revenge is a two way street\" seagal says in this movie...well forget revenge Steven, you need redemption! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-061ab34de28045d9b41adcf514113326", "input": "Review: The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a2f96fd8d884ce3a514ebd4fe890790", "input": "Review: WHEN I first saw this film, in London, in 1958, I was bowled over. I had never seen a film like this before. It had a strange, hypnotic effect, quite unlike the films that I had seen previously and it left a lasting impact.I believe that Odile Versios & Marina Vlady are sisters, if not twins. Certainly the interaction is amazing in its power to influence the viewer.If this has been converted to DVD - in Region 2 format - and in the original French language, I would love to hear about it & where it can be purchased. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-159e3ad6a12a4f94820f2c190be10ff5", "input": "Review: I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked \"Breaking the Waves\", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e35c763b235a4877a2647992b1157f6b", "input": "Review: This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what \"dan7\" in the computer graphic meant, said, \"Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24.\" He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read \"Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation\" by Jim McKeever and \"The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture\" by George E. Ladd. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac0bc6ab462c49438a299f1b2fd17bf9", "input": "Review: First, this film is not a \"thriller.\" Neither is it \"gripping, taut.\" It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and \"cunning vixen\" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd977ac3817c4b3db0cff22e19d0d797", "input": "Review: This is simply one of the finest renditions of Dicken's classic tale. The script very accurately follows the story originally penned by Dickens, and captures a perfect balance between a film atmosphere and a play atmosphere. Viewers fond of either format will find enough of the story rooted in their presentation style of choice.George C. Scott brings a delightfully realistic approach to the character of Scrooge, and is very convincing in the character development instigated by the visits of the ghosts. I found that he was able to win me over to the point where I sympathized with the old miser, something rarely done in other versions. The superb job done by the supporting actors add greatly to this production, which is simply the most enjoyable of all the Christmas Carol versions I have seen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-36a30a41753d48e1b7f9d774a23387f1", "input": "Review: 79/100. Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers never made anything but great films together. Although this is not one of their best, it is an excellent musical. There are a few outstanding musical numbers, good support from Randolph Scott. Two notable appearances, Betty Grable and Lucille Ball make memorable early screen performances. Ball is particularly good, and a blonde as well. The \"Let's Face the Music and Dance\" is one of the musical duo's best numbers ever. Harriet Hilliard, better know as Harriet Nelson of \"Ozzie and Harriet\" plays Ginger Roger's sister. The basic plot is pretty familiar, but with a cast this exceptional, it works. Excellent art direction and score. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-472e42e647874ef886e1122b1ea916a9", "input": "Review: This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c9663932bc7405988ffe3863f8eeb66", "input": "Review: I've bought certain films on disc even though the second rate presentation wasn't an option. A certain company I won't identify here has put out several pan and scan dvds (\"Clean and Sober\", \"Star 80\", and this one, to name just three!) of films I don't think anyone wants to see in this compromised format. Some discs give the viewer a choice of 16x9 or full screen and others are just in their theatrical release 1.66:1 ratio.That off my chest, I'll say \"Deathtrap\" was a spooky and oddly enough, amusing picture. My only complaints are the tinny score (what IS that f____g instrument that is usually dragged out for films set in 18th century France?) and Dyan Cannon screaming at regular intervals. Couldn't her character have been an asthmatic who grabbed for an inhaler when she was stressed? Minor complaints, both. The benefits of discs include being able to fast forward to get beyond those things which you don't like.I never saw a staged version of \"Deathtrap\", so having these folks in the roles sets a great impression of their careers at the time. Before Broadway tickets cost an arm and a leg, the theatre was more affordable to average people. Now, anyone paying less than a king's ransom to get live entertainment probably isn't going to a hit show on the great hyped way.Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve were both large, virile specimens in the early 80s and that's integral to how we'll react to their profession and overall image here. They're definitely not bookish men who can't fight or will back down from an obstacle. The two are equally great as their criminal stubbornness becomes their ultimate \"deathtrap\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-388b7105d63640d2b8b092518ed1d286", "input": "Review: I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8abb640f42104a51b6e2c5f5223911d3", "input": "Review: Obviously, there wasn't a huge budget for this film which definitely hindered the production. But the story and ending were so brutal that they made up for a lot. I mean brutal on the level of Ju Dou and other (great) Chinese films. I first saw this when I was 14 years old, I ran home and begged God to forgive me for everything... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd7a57ff98dc46a18c8818a66f04ddac", "input": "Review: King's Solomon's Mines brings us Patrick Swayze (playing Allan Quatermain)who has spent a lot of time in Africa, but decides it is time to return to England and be a father to his son. He finds that his wife's parents have taken custody of his son and that he has very little chance of getting custody of him with lots of money for a law suit. In comes Alison Deedy (playing Elizabeth) whose father is in Africa and being held by an African tribe for ransom of the map Elizabeth's father had sent her. Elizabeth seeks out Quatermain to take her back to Africa to find her father.There is a good cast of supporting characters that go along with Quatermain and Elizabeth and of course there are some enemies (Russians) who want the map also.The movie holds your attention until the end. Patrick once again plays a ruggedly handsome honorable man who comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Patrick is a great dramatic actor who can easily portray passion, loss and despair, the rugged silent good man, anger and strength; In King Solomon's Minds his character actually smiles a few times. I would really like to see Patrick Swayze in a relaxed live-loving story again, one in which he doesn't have to clench his jaws and be quite so strong. Maybe a little dancing would help. But this is a good movie for the entire family and worth the time to watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5394b4f1bee842ceb3efbc61c0a8633d", "input": "Review: Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? * out of 4-(Bad) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7aaa26720364115bbbbd4ab55a96e43", "input": "Review: The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. SOME SPOILERSThe basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fd2170b252a4e1383e70025a83f41ec", "input": "Review: This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a349610a3eb64b9bbaada2d8f50d1494", "input": "Review: This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-72b30acb53cd4e6ca9696aa88710e085", "input": "Review: This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.For some, it seems, this \"modernization\" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed \"significance.\" The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. \"It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain.\" Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2fddc443d244c7a9ff8a938b3e6b18f", "input": "Review: As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including \"Pittsburgh\") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as \"The Sand Diviner,\" who foretells all that will happen. The supposed \"happy ending\" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd354c40dd3d46339e46d33a74fa1675", "input": "Review: Worst movie I have seen since Gingerale Afternoon. I suppose that this is a horror/comedy. I pretty much predicted every scene in this movie. The special-effects were not so special. I believe that I could come up with as good of effects from what I have lying around the house. I wish I could have something good to say about this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. Even Coolio should be ashamed of appearing in such a turkey. I do, after a little thought, have one thing good to say about this movie - it ended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb7dd008c52345bbacc52dcf1daedccb", "input": "Review: Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says \"lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away\". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78fa8c119b4d4c78833f0e19420435ac", "input": "Review: Why do people who do not know what a particular time in the past was like feel the need to try to define that time for others? Replace Woodstock with the Civil War and the Apollo moon-landing with the Titanic sinking and you've got as realistic a flick as this formulaic soap opera populated entirely by low-life trash. Is this what kids who were too young to be allowed to go to Woodstock and who failed grade school composition do? \"I'll show those old meanies, I'll put out my own movie and prove that you don't have to know nuttin about your topic to still make money!\" Yeah, we already know that. The one thing watching this film did for me was to give me a little insight into underclass thinking. The next time I see a slut in a bar who looks like Diane Lane, I'm running the other way. It's child abuse to let parents that worthless raise kids. It's audience abuse to simply stick Woodstock and the moonlanding into a flick as if that ipso facto means the film portrays 1969. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7bcc1967d4004307922e4e0b0451afec", "input": "Review: This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong? Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-811741ad07874c10a1719c8c8e65d002", "input": "Review: Prison is not often brought up during conversations about the best eighties horror films, and there's a good reason for that because it's not one of the best...but as you delve past the classic films that the decade had to offer, this is certainly among the best of the lesser known/smaller films. The film does have some connection to blockbusters; for a start it's an early directorial effort for Renny Harlin; the capable director behind a number of action films including Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Deep Blue Sea; and secondly we have an early role for Lord of the Rings star Viggo Mortensen. The film is not exactly original but the plot line is interesting. We focus on a prison that has been reopened after a number of years. This was the prison where a man named Charles Forsyth was sent to the electric chair after being framed by the prison's governor. Naturally, the spirit of the dead man is not resting in peace; and when the old execution room is reopened, the spirit of the dead convict escapes for vengeance.The film is not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it does take care to build up its various characters and while the main point of the film is always the horror, the prison drama behind it all does make for an interesting base. This is a good job too because other than the basic premise, the film doesn't really have a 'plot' to go from and we solely rely on the interaction between the characters to keep things interesting. The horror featured in the film is at times grotesque but it's never over the top, which might actually be the reason why this film is seldom remembered, being released in a decade of excess. The murders themselves are rather good and imaginative, however, and provide some major highlights. As the film goes on, we start to delve more into the back-story of the vengeful convict's ghost and while it's fairly interesting, some things about it don't make sense and it drags the film down a little. Still, everything boils down to an exciting climax and overall I have to say that Prison is a film well worth tracking down. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-309ff3cd10344871afbd7aca3aae89ec", "input": "Review: A meteor drops from the sky and reawakens a plesiosaur that long ago used to terrorize the area around Crater Lake . As the monster eats the locals they try and find away of killing the monster.Recent attempts at sending up old horror and science fiction films like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Alien Trespass are kind of rendered moot when you have films like Crater Lake Monster available for screening. It's the sort of film that those films spoof and send up only this is the real deal. Its everything those films try to be only with out the tongue in cheek and its so much more fun because of it. This is a real drive-in sort of film that had the unfortunate luck of coming just as Star Wars changed the way we look at special effects. The monster, a mix of stop motion and a life size head, is a charmingly quaint little beast. The filmmakers spoil the audience with frequent shots of the monster and its mayhem. Sure its clear that its all fake, but isn't movies about suspension of disbelief? Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way. If you want a real authentic drive in monster movie look no farther. This would be perfect for a double or triple feature with similar lake monster films (Boggy Creek etc.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2780e8f4912b4ab8bf1a0711eb1c4b26", "input": "Review: I really thought they did an *excellent* job, there was nothing wrong with it at all, I don't know how the first commenter could have said it was terrible, it moved me to tears (I guess it moved about everyone to tears) but I try not to cry in a movie because it's embarrassing but this one got me. It was SOOO good! I hope they release it on DVD because I will definitely buy a copy! I feel like it renewed my faith and gave me a hope that I can't explain, it made me want to strive to be a better person, they went through so much and we kind of take that for granted, I guess. Compared to that, I feel like our own trials are nothing. Well, not nothing, but they hardly match what they had to go through. I loved it. Who played Emma?! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c1f1c2d8add431e89893cdb6c26b3cd", "input": "Review: Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55d9bb7420bc477abcbf35ac2cf81217", "input": "Review: Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The \"stars\" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, \"Jinx\", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-949a3e5a8b2447b3b9dd7dac38db7784", "input": "Review: This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be \"saved\" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had \"proven\" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9b198c4b66841d1b3c5374426705649", "input": "Review: The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.Avoid this one at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f889511428924336bdce86448d0be6bf", "input": "Review: Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a16507f857ee4fa98f65e6db8b774705", "input": "Review: Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.) 'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1085b042b9a740ce9344a211bbe1645c", "input": "Review: Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home \"renovated.\" That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with \"Low Rider\" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and \"pimped\" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at \"Makeover\" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f55ff38b39874778901e2461537de2a9", "input": "Review: This three stooges flick is at a tie with my other favorite flick \"Disorder in the Court\". This is an uproar of laughter for any Three Stooges fan to enjoy.The boys are janitors at a recording studio when they hear the lovely Christine McIntyre sings a great version of \"Voices of Spring\". She is going to be offered a record deal, but she is scarred to be honest with her father about her choice of a career and prove herself as a real singer. When she and the others leave the studio, the stooges decide to have a little fun and play her record and dress Curly up as Christine. The contract lady who can make Christine's career, sees Curly and mistakes him for Christine and invites Curly to sing for her party. Of course there is a man that they have upset that is at the party and they destroy his solo in front of the crowd, so he'll find a way to get back at them.What a great stooge flick, this should not be missed! 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f97789d32bdc469cac072bb3a4e38146", "input": "Review: A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-157e99a68dec44e6a3edaf1d4d930968", "input": "Review: There have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named \"this is not a laxitive\". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94e07f420a87438aa894295c04100f61", "input": "Review: This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad5c6be3a519494598a109bee35593c4", "input": "Review: I went to see \"Evening\" because of the cast. I'd gone to see \"Norman's Room\" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for \"The Notebook\" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt \"was a mistake\" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that \"past mistake\" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest \"girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy\" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- \"I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why.\" And the \"why\" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's \"perfect life,\" her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the \"really meaningful message\" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with \"Lifetime Movie-of-the-week\" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the \"meaningful\" and \"moviemaking\" aspects. I give it \"3\" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about \"Evening\" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent \"Norman's Room\" and find out what truly great acting is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-97452bbbfe89439e9e02969275014c52", "input": "Review: I first saw this as a child living in East London. The scars of Hitlers Luftwaffe were all too evident and the landscape of the movie was reminiscent of our street. I remember having nightmares after seeing it. The odd thing is, it really hasn't dated if viewed as a piece of social history in Cinema fiction. Apart from a globally destructive war, the scale of the machines was badly awry, more Nano-Technology now, but overall, an excellent and well-crafted work. It was interesting to see how space travel was perceived back then. I would think that firing a spacecraft from a gigantic gun would almost certainly kill the astronauts. However, much was right. Mans desire for war, mans inhumanity to man. The means of war as a catalyst for development. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-15a05c0fcdf2494f88e17dab804bac7a", "input": "Review: It's a tale that could have taken place anywhere really, given the right circumstances. Street entertainer catching the attention of famous opera star and friendship ensuing. The aging entertainer finds/buys a male child to pass his art to. From there, we follow them through the rigors of their challenging, but free life along the river. Traveling town to town, he performs and has some degree of notoriety. Despite the times and the influences, the man is kind and good.Overall, the performances are first rate, especially Xu Zhu, who portrays the street performer. The child (Renying Zhou) is beautiful, and downright strong, and withstands the overt prejudices well. The two protagonists, along with supporting help from the kind opera singer, Master Liang (an interestingly androgynous Zhao Zhigang), paint a very interesting tale of forgiveness, sadness and love. Some have mentioned this film's remote similarities to BA WANG BIE JI (FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE); yet this film can't stand easily on its own, any resemblance is remote at best.My only qualm with the KING OF MASKS, is the ending. It was weak, cliche and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The audience was already wrapped up in the story, what was the needless manipulation for? What a shame. To bring a fine motion picture that far, only to surrender to emotional (and corny) pathos like that. It frankly made this film good, instead of the classic, it should've been. That aside, the KING OF MASKS is still very well worth your time. I was happy to see the Shaw Brothers are still producing good films. Highly recommended. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b314efdf957a47bbb17a084f6699da73", "input": "Review: The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in \"Vertigo\", released the same year as this film, but then \"Vertigo\" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb1f505c2da6439cb78558a296a778e3", "input": "Review: \"Fido\" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, \"Eisenhower era\" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss \"Fido\" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to \"Tank Girl\", but the two movies are vastly different. \"Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4975ee3ff19c4ff69c4cfa7abd741f76", "input": "Review: Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the \"prequel\" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6640838a30f342f5925741be0639ccb1", "input": "Review: Yes it may be goofy and may not seem as funny as many high budget comedies out there, but this movie is truly hilarious if you really watch it. Tim Meadows has always struck me as being funny off of the Saturday Night Live show. Whenever he would do this character on the show I would crack up laughing. So after I saw this was going to be playing on Comedy Central one night I decided to check it out. All in all I was farily impressed with this movie, because it wasn't meant to win any Oscars or become comedy of the year, but it did entertain the Saturday Night Live fans that love the Ladies Man character. This movie is also packed with some highly quotable lines that can be recited for years to come. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d4a104545cbf49a2aa629b14fcf4f565", "input": "Review: A quiet, sweet and beutifully nostalgic movie on how it is to be confronted with old friends and surroundings from your youth with all that memories and the problems and sorrows of the present with you. A movie that makes you feel good. All the ingredients are here: old jelousy, rivalry, friendship and loyalty. Mischief, nightly fridge-raids and all the other fun stuff that we all remember from our summer camps. All the characters get the opportunity for a week to experience this again as the old camp-leader now is retiring and want to meet the children from the golden years of the camp. All of them are now in their thirties and in the middle of their careers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af3769fcb6b04250af8b4ffcbe79bd51", "input": "Review: I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:Stanley and Stella in \"Breaking the Ice\". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-458c1c800d01407596cee49860531fce", "input": "Review: I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the \"shocking\" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. \"Italians\" and \"rip-offs\", two words that go together very well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1c0a12b25e14c1cba8f8fba55bf8e41", "input": "Review: Although too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as \"The Nazis - A warning From History\", \"Blitz\" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. \"Britain At War In Colour\", with its companion series \"Japan\", \"Germany\" and \"America\" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a43bd25ccbc84c78b4eeb0a32c7382a3", "input": "Review: I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-746519b45aa84958bc67639ae784a418", "input": "Review: Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2e7a5c3bcca5492698ecea9697e61748", "input": "Review: I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen. As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary! I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created! Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper \"witch-like\" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed? I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2751bc8c86034fa09c807aac5eb1c29b", "input": "Review: There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5aeb939004004cedb3e63df808c70ac6", "input": "Review: A sentimental story with a sentimental sound track. It's about a little girl ( with a voice impediment ) who treasures her green parrot Paulie. The parrot thinks and talks like a human being and gives help and advice to his constant companion.The parrot is definitely the star of the film. At times mischievous and at times in fits of depression the bird captures the mood in a most remarkable and expressive way. The synchronised voice too is very well done and within a minute or two you can actually believe that this intelligent little bird exists.Early in the film her father gives the bird to a pawnbroker and the subsequent scenes tell the story of Paulie's constant struggle over many years to be re-united with his mistress. One of the many memorable scenes is when he falls into bad company and is encouraged to spy on people using the automatic teller machines. Paulie it seems has a phenomenal memory.The ending is predictable, but who would want it otherwise. Children will love this film and anybody who keeps a bird as a pet will delight in Paulie's antics. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44d712609e5c4fa19e8d656da1b582f2", "input": "Review: This film was more effective in persuading me of a Zionist conspiracy than a Muslim one. And I'm Jewish.Anbody go to journalism school? Read an editorial? Freshman year rhetoric? These alarmist assertions, presented in a palatable way, might prove persuasive. But by offering no acknowledgment of possible opposing arguments, nor viable (or any at all) solutions, few sources and each of dubious origin, makes the argument an ineffectual diatribe.And thank goodness for that -- I wouldn't want anyone to leave the theatre BELIEVING any of this racist claptrap.A good lesson for me -- and hopefully a cautionary tale for you -- to actually read about a film before seeing it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15666d3023cc44a1a6fccf023612a097", "input": "Review: I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.Okay, here's some criticism.1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6919dac7439545639c2434c9f775b235", "input": "Review: A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort \"The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)\" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's \"Lady X\" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10d6396e797046b6bc10d039efe5ae1f", "input": "Review: Visually cluttered, plot less, incredibly mind-numbing rubbish. Not even close to Greenaway's better work. Avoid at all costs!The overlapping 'split screen' effects do nothing more than confuse, the film is very dark for a lot of the time and the 'artistic' composing of images is pretentious in the extreme.There is absolutely nothing to recommend about this film; even the nudity is incredibly unerotic, which seeing it fills a large part of the film soon gets very boring.Plus, how anyone can say that the acting of Ewen MacGregor is brilliant is beyond me. He showed more ability in the Star Wars series, and that's saying something.I've not been so unimpressed with a film since I saw 'Darby O'Gill and the Little People'! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79c647127ae04437a402d45fb570b894", "input": "Review: What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac94cecf2a364ec8bb81e637add34d43", "input": "Review: I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERSI think I need to puke now Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-73e5d7136e8240429487a57ebdc5503b", "input": "Review: First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of \"Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me...\" is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4031661107549dca503c91ba1ec1fe0", "input": "Review: Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' \"Greedy\"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02a783564bdd4ae28fecd4487bda03fb", "input": "Review: SPOILERS AHEADThis is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, \"Flashlight!\" in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, \"oh yeah!\" Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea685f4a5f844458982448b97a134a98", "input": "Review: I really liked this movie. Of course the idea is pretty much out there...the federal government arranging to have a tracking device implanted into the jaw of an small-time thief to lure a more dangerous thief/computer hacker out of hiding. But Alvin Sanders, the man who the feds have \"volunteered\" to be implanted with the device, is a very likable person and it turns out to be a lot of fun getting in his head with him for a little while. Alvin even eventually proves himself to be much more than a good-humored but passive or one-dimensional character when he shows that he is not nearly as easily manipulated as he may seem. Definetly worth a watch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7672188ab4ca4d6cbef20303570232dd", "input": "Review: Trapped: buried alive brings us to a resort that has just opened, and is soon to close.We start with a guy in gear blowing up drifts, to avoid the possibility of avalanches. somehow, that doesn't make sense. anyways, he's about to blow away one particularly big one, when he notices the resort is open. despite his best efforts, higher authority tells him his day is over.soon, as everyone expects, an avalanche hits.Look, i'm not gonna reveal any more, all i can say is this was a B-movie designed for the family channel (which i just saw it on, and the fact it had no commercials proves it's a B-movie) anyways, it's a pretty decent film, but it's partially unreal.firsthand, when people are buried by ice and snow, they're buried. not just traced by powder. or, what about a CD for a screwdriver? it's not possible. and finally, what i can't stress enough, is that an explosion cannot stop a avalanche, guaranteed.furthermore, it's worth a rental or a TV viewing, but not owning. 7/10.The movie is rated PG, but maybe it should have received something a little more strong. a boy nearly loses his foot in an elevator, but his leg is cut around the ankle, a guy is toasted by electricity and diesel, and in the weight room, dead people are laying around.enjoy. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3cdd533669ee46f8a21fd44096c4853e", "input": "Review: This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-174e370fee9443aabcc89b9c3dbc809a", "input": "Review: Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe44197b7f3341ec8da43107dd6f1948", "input": "Review: Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not, so beware:Just a small but crucial thing to watch for, an intriguing possibility: the boys steal a green Citroen at one point, for a joy ride, and return it to the owner having done purposeful and vengeful hidden damage to the car, hoping that the owner will crash. Is it the very same car they steal much later from the picnicking family? We know the original owner sold it. They drive off at the end on a dangerous road, one which I understand has been closed to all but pedestrians for the last ten years. A whole new slant to the end of the film.On another matter, this film could have been called \"Scent of a Woman\". I don't recall another film, certainly not American, that treats the scent of a woman in such a frank and open manner, much like the \"nose\" of a fine Bordeaux. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc2e7b943d22472e93a62fd37db8c34f", "input": "Review: I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c1d7390ad974826927b30c18cf5df08", "input": "Review: (There isn't much in the way of spoilers, since there isn't a plot to reveal, but still, I guess I describe some of what happens so...) This is it. This is THE most nonsensical film I've ever seen. There are simply no words to describe this movie, although \"bizarre\" \"ridiculous\" and \"ego trip\" are pretty close. the opening half hour or so are really, really weird music videos, with absolutely no plot or continuity, apart from that MJ falls into some from the previous. One of the highlights of this part of the \"film\" in the section where MJ is flying a merry-go-round aeroplane through what seem to be half-arsed bond intro rejects and sections cut from Yellow Submarine (dear lord you could not make this up).Then, with a little over an hour remaining, the \"film\" begins, with a lot of claymation (some of it really creepy) spotting our \"hero\" and chasing him looking for an autograph. Obviously, this leaves our as of yet mute (discounting songs) lead somewhat worried, and he manages to temporarily lose them. Fortunate for him, because it means he can witness a falling star and, and again, I'm not making this up, turn into a claymation rabbit. He uses this cunning disguise to try and sneak past them, but, for reasons I can't recall right now, they see through it (oh no!) and the creepy chase begins again. Cue another song (big shock there).Shortly after the end of the chase, MJ somehow brings the rabbit to life, until he is busted by a policeman (in the middle of the desert) because it is, apparently, illegal to dance there.The rest of the film is equally as strange, highlights including MJ cleaning up a bar to the tune of Smooth Criminal, including shooting a man with his finger, not only killing the guy, but burning his shadow into the wall, a la nuclear fission weapons. Another good moment is when MJ, seeing, Mr Big (Joe \"what the hell happened to his career at this point?\" Peschi) kidnap one of the children he was friends with, magically creates a tommy gun, and in another moment of violence that pepper this film seemingly at random, opens fire at everything that moves. A final moment I shall mention is when MJ, surrounded by Mr Big and his private army. Seriously, this guy has dozens of people working for him, and they're decked out more like commando units rather than mobsters, which I guess they are. How does he get out? Why, he turns into a robot, complete with weapons and shield. This is the third of four transformations he makes, almost always when backed into a corner and/or on the run.This film is quite, quite surreal, with little in the way of plot, and virtually no continuity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5dfb671ea1024ca88f3466e4f91ec73c", "input": "Review: I saw this when it first came to video, my little sister got it as a gift and I was probably 12 at the time... What stood out for me was the lack of mid-movie conflict that so many movies have, where the main characters get mad at each other because when it comes time to explain themselves they just don't say the one thing that you're shouting at the screen that would make sense of the whole deal, that any person of reasonable intellect would know to say. This is what I like the most about the movie I guess, that the main characters don't do mean things to each other halfway through... they don't break up and make up, they just grow to like each other more as the movie goes on.These two kids team up and though they seem at first to be from opposite sides of the track, they're not that different. Loui is actually just some middle class kid that needed to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family, and Cecelia was an upper class kid that just needed to prove to her family that she existed and they would miss her if she was gone. Anyway, I saw this movie posted on Hulu and had to watch it again... sure there's plot holes if you analyze the script and no, Woog and Dweeb shouldn't be eating hot dogs since they would have been herbivores in reality.Now, what detracts from the film is it's unexpected scariness. Little kids under the age of 5 would probably be frightened by the scenes with Dr. Screweyes. And, the addition of him halfway through the movie (though it's blatantly obvious in the first scene that he will make an appearance) is too abrupt... there should be a glimpse of him doing his show earlier in the movie, perhaps to show that it's not that scary without the the dinosaurs. I guess it just lacked any real present danger for the entire first half of the movie, so that it lacks a little continuity when he appears for the second half.Considering the target audience, who I'm sure can overlook the not so mind blowing animation and dialog issues... I think I'll give it a pass on those factors too, and just enjoy the story. It's a great flick for kid and it does stick in your mind... makes you kinda think about how you treat people and it should be revisited every 10 years I think. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-35ad079b6adc4a69a2091a3f5e6c2588", "input": "Review: I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1344a442cbbf448fbeee204876fbdb3e", "input": "Review: This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off. Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie. This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d90fc2385b54c69b0aae369b9d4de6e", "input": "Review: This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called \"Green Death\", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, \"gruesome\". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this \"fight\" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the \"bad guy\" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-26b76ad169e4471d8e0d3e4703c69615", "input": "Review: In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a \"thinking man's horror film.\" Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.Even in the dream world things are boring.A short no on this one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6476874bef44a4aa4331c15805eedf8", "input": "Review: Since the day I saw this film when it came out in 1981, it has been one of my top 3 favorites. The blurb I wrote for Amazon is below, and I'm just thrilled that it's finally coming out on DVD on 10/17/06 - the film's 25th anniversary.The last credit in this film explains its appeal - \"Thank you to the people of Manhattan on whose island this was filmed.\" A charming and witty romantic comedy, it is a love story written to New Yorkers (Peter Bogdanovich is a native) who can identify every location (West 12th Street, the Ansonia, the old FAO Schwartz, the Plaza, the Roxy, Chez Brigitte, and City Limits which was a country & western club). One gets the impression that the entire ensemble cast clicked as well off-screen as they do on, and this intimacy is clearly communicated. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS. Not only an ode to Dorothy Stratten, it was also Audrey Hepburn's last feature appearance (she had a cameo subsequent to this film) and her inner beauty seeps from the screen. Buy it, make a big tub of popcorn, and curl up with someone you love. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-14a34602eac7481ebf8d44097dee4130", "input": "Review: No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating \"An American Werewolf in London,\" disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in \"Happy Days\" & \"Laverne & Shirley\" combined.The one woman who elevates this movie to the \"so bad, it's good\" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a \"hot chick\" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. \"Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell.\" She wasn't kidding.This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, \"Teen Wolf\" was better than this. \"Teen Wolf Too\" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c102c99d01a74e0e87ee88eb0803283e", "input": "Review: This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-689c0f1a245a46ee836aedad7ac33825", "input": "Review: This picks up about a year after the events in \"Basic Instinct\". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to \"Basic...\" 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b3003b722bd648ad967fedf0e7a01a09", "input": "Review: I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying \"What do you want?\" The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from \"I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun\" to \"I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style.\" A very important thing to leave out.Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0ce8f85b8ca424f9bf98ee7c189354e", "input": "Review: Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George \"Gabby\" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a \"dual role\". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. *** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4695456cdfe14ddd91572ea053f4ede0", "input": "Review: Director/star Clint Eastwood's \"Sudden Impact\" is an intriguing addition to the \"Dirty Harry\" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up \"Make my day\" scene recalls the \"Do you feel lucky\" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This \"incompatibility\" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, \"What about the victim's rights?\" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable \"Magnum Force\") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that \"Sudden Impact\" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the \"Dirty Harry\" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock \"The Dead Pool\" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted \"Go ahead, make my day.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0d5395e83cc47c89daf1658fa0c9715", "input": "Review: Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through \"zombification\". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the \"zombies revolted\", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I \"entertained\" myself throughout most of the movie.I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa7f5791a65a4dbf95cab49911edb44e", "input": "Review: Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2d8edf9303ff45e8989563f26f6fdca8", "input": "Review: Mario Lanza, of course, is \"The Great Caruso\" in this 1951 film also starring Ann Blyth, Dorothy Kirsten, Eduard Franz and Ludwig Donath. This is a highly fictionalized biography of the legendary, world-renowned tenor whose name is known even today.The film is opulently produced, and the music is glorious and beautifully sung by Lanza, Kirsten, Judmila Novotna, Blanche Thebom, and other opera stars who appeared in the film. If you're a purist, seeing people on stage smiling during the Sextet from \"Lucia\" will strike you as odd - even if Caruso's wife Dorothy just had a baby girl. Also it's highly unlikely that Caruso ever sang Edgardo in Lucia; the role lay too high for him.In taking dramatic license, the script leaves out some very dramatic parts of Caruso's life. What was so remarkable about him is that he actually created roles in operas that are today in the standard repertoire, yet this is never mentioned in the film. These roles include Maurizio in Adriana Lecouvreur and Dick Johnson in \"Girl of the Golden West,\" There is a famous photo of him posing with a sheet wrapped around him like a toga. The reason for that photo? His only shirt was in the laundry. He was one of the pioneers of recorded music and had a long partnership with the Victor Talking-Machine Company (later RCA Victor). He was singing Jose in Carmen in San Francisco the night of the earthquake.Instead, the MGM story basically has him dying on stage during a performance of Martha, which never happened. He had a hemorrhage during \"L'Elisir d'amore\" at the Met and could not finish the performance; he only sang three more times at the Met, his last role as Eleazar in La Juive. What killed him? The same thing that killed Valentino - peritonitis. His first role at the Met was not Radames in Aida, as indicated in the film, but the Duke in Rigoletto. So when it says on the screen \"suggested by Dorothy Caruso's biography of her husband,\" that's what it was - suggested. What is true is that Dorothy's father disowned her after her marriage, and left her $1 of his massive estate. They also did have a daughter Gloria together (who died at the age of 79 on 10/7/2007). However, Caruso had four other children by a mistress before he married Dorothy.Some people say that Lanza's voice is remarkably like Caruso's, but just listen to Caruso sing in the film \"Match Point\" -- Caruso's voice is remarkably unlike Lanza's. In fact, from his sound, had he wanted to, Caruso could have sung as a baritone. He is thought to have had some trouble with high notes, further evidence of baritone leanings; and the role he was preparing when he died was Othello, a dramatic tenor role, which Lanza definitely was not. Lanza's voice deserved not to be compared with another. He made a unique contribution to film history, popularizing operatic music. He sings the music in \"The Great Caruso\" with a robust energy; he is truly here at the peak of what would be a short career. His acting is natural and genuine. Ann Blyth is lovely as Dorothy and gets to sing a little herself.Really a film for opera lovers and Lanza fans, which are probably one and the same. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bf8e6f45c35947d1bd15383c3b6b6379", "input": "Review: OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does \"pick up\"...The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see \"THE BEAST\", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's \"attention\" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A \"shocking\" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-95eea3eb8482485e877d83df25e799f1", "input": "Review: The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dafa54bb7cea4bd3a44872f8cf8c71e0", "input": "Review: Spoiler for anyone who is lucky enough to ever see this film (so not really spoiler after all). Saw this film when it was released and can still remember parts of it. It's all set in a small town in the west or what is left of that town. It more resembles a ghost town with few inhabitants. Among them a couple, where the wife is especially wicked. She lets her man die in the end of the film and leaves the town but has to cross the desert. We never know what happens to her next but just before she left her dying man shoots after her and deliberately does not hit her and instead the water supply. She is not aware of that soon she will be very thirsty. Mark Damon kills a couple of bad guys in a funny manor - but that's another story, which I don't remember too good. The remaining impression of the film was that it was one of the first times I saw a really wicked woman on film, who pretends to be anything but wicked - can't be compared with the witch in 'Snowwhite', who, in comparison is easy to find out. Very tight western with few main characters and still absorbing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e1c783006784acf89afbe7c743b0e2d", "input": "Review: Robert Duvall is a direct descendent of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, according the IMDb.com movie database. After seeing this film, you may think Duvall's appearance is reincarnation at it's best. One of my most favorite films. I wish the composer, Peter Rodgers Melnick had a CD or there was a soundtrack available. Wonderful scenery and music and \"all too-true-to-life,\" especially for those of us that live in, or have moved to, the South. This is a \"real moment in time.\" Life moves on, slowly, but \"strangers we do not remain.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c36ddf286f61431588ff0e026c91f4bc", "input": "Review: Mardi Gras: Made in china is an excellent movie that depicts how two cultures have much in common but, are not even aware of the influence each society has on one another. David Redmon open your eyes and allows you to see how the workers in china manufactures beads that cost little to nothing and are sold in America for up to 20 dollars. When Redmon questions Americans about where these beads come from they had no clue and seemed dumb founded. When he told them that they are made in China for less then nothing with horrible pay and unacceptable working conditions, Americans seemed sad, hurt, and a little remorseful but didn't really seem that they would stop purchasing the beads after finding out the truth. When Redmon questioned the workers in china they did not know that Americans were wearing them over their necks and paid so much for these beads. The workers laughed at what the purpose was behind beads and couldn't believe it. This movie is a great film that gives us something to think about in other countries besides our own.M. Pitts Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-58573219fb60491b853ae9a51b984405", "input": "Review: Mary Pickford (\"Born on the Fourth of July\" as Angela Moore) is \"The Little American\" (of French heritage); she falls in love with Jack Holt (as Karl Von Austreim), who had moved to America with his German father and American mother. French-American Raymond Hatton (as Count Jules de Destin of the \"Fighting Destins\") has fallen in love with Ms. Pickford. The love triangled threesome eventually wind up in France, with the Great War (World War I, in hindsight) complicating their lives considerably.A mostly entertaining, if propagandistically flawed, Cecil B. DeMille film. The torpedoing, and sinking, of a ship carrying Pickford is \"Titanic\"-like. The war intrigue gets dramatic as Pickford slowly becomes an undercover spy for France, while the Germans occupy her ancestral home. Of course, German lover Holt arrives. It was difficult to believe they took so long to recognize each other as he moved in for the rape, but it was dark; and, prior events had them believe each other dead. The film goes WAY over-the-top in its symbolism. Pickford was, by the way, Canadian - though, few could deny she wasn't a \"Little American\", for all intents and purposes.FUN to spot \"extras\" who later became major stars include Wallace Beery, Colleen Moore, and Ramon Novarro - especially, watch for Mr. Novarro exhibiting \"star\" quality during one of the film's more memorable sequences: Pickford and the wounded soldier saluting each other as he is taken by her on a stretcher. Novarro even gets Mary Pickford to write a letter for him; obviously, he's got a future in pictures. Also future-bound is Ben Alexander, who plays the boy \"Bobby\"; he becomes a dependable child actor, and grows up to become a Jack Webb partner on \"Dragnet\". ******* The Little American (7/12/17) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Mary Pickford, Jack Holt, Raymond Hatton Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4657d4f7c5aa4f19b2e07ea06e0f65b4", "input": "Review: This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims \"f**king foreigners\"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb996ea58c48421ea1411a8134f9141c", "input": "Review: I know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1beda09f9554a74bd93c42028046725", "input": "Review: As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,\"Mayerling\"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call \"A Riot of Color\" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of \"The Student Prince\" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner.\"Forbidden Love\" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be \"padding\". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like \"Auntie Mame\",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question \"What's the bleeding time?\". I am not qualified to dispute \"Mayerling\" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f01f33d0167043e291a4f17fb02ca001", "input": "Review: I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffbc64a023e84ca09d931e2ff00fe3dc", "input": "Review: I was very surprised with this film. I was touched with the lives that paulie touched along his way to find his \"marie\" the little girl he was separated from. The humor was also very good and it did not hurt the story as i thought it would probably do. Actually i was expecting \"paulie wants a cracker\" jokes to hurt this film but even that was done in a very humorous scene that turns very touching when paulie is in the research lab press room conference. So if you wish to see a good \"animal that talks\" film check this one out, much better than Dr. DOLITTLE in my opinion. PAULIE also has a surprised twist in the end that is done very nicely as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7bfbafabe6634b698f0f7bd45ca7487a", "input": "Review: I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0ed2bf153cc48e6aa9aab0c54c3e9bf", "input": "Review: Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-95864010759645caa4e382d704176ccd", "input": "Review: I love this movie. I mean the story may not be the best, but the dancing most certainly makes up for it. You get to know a little bit about each character the way THEY want you to learn about them. I just think that you won't like this movie unless you're into Broadway... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-39e2c297c5a94afc80a8b92b4fda225f", "input": "Review: This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching \"28 Days later\" and \"Magnolia\". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the \"F\" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a8153e8777346669d7874d71797bd57", "input": "Review: The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. \"Life's dramas\", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. \"The Perfect Son\" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b945ed30419479fa0083110f4a7dde0", "input": "Review: Coming shortly before the imposition of a morality code darkened the spirits of writers, directors and actors, the first film adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham's \"Of Human Bondage\" titillated countless moviegoers. It has no shock value today, just fine acting.While the cast is excellent, this is Bette Davis's first great role and one of Leslie Howard's best performances. Howard is English wannabe Parisian artist Philip Carey who is gently and firmly told that he lacks any talent and that his dedication is no substitute for true genius. Taking the lesson to heart he returns to London and enrolls in a medical college (one, by the way, that seems to have no female students-at that time there would have been at least a few. Perhaps author/physician Maugham didn't care for distaff medicos).Having tea one day Carey is entranced by a waitress, Mildred Rogers, Bette Davis in a role as a morally loose and basically wicked farrago. Her Cockney accent is as sharp as Eliza Doolittle's. His repeated attempts to date her are greeted with the less than enthusiastic reply, \"I don't mind,\" a sure sign for any man with his head screwed on straight that he's plumbing the depths. Maugham's Mildred supplemented her waitress tips with a bit of old fashioned street-walking, something not clearly brought out here.Carey's besotted prostration serves Rogers' avaricious need for support of the financial kind. He is desperately in love with her-she plays him as a Sunday church organist effortlessly plies her instrument. No sex here. Recognizing that he is getting nowhere, he begins a chaste relationship with Norah, a woman who adores him. Re-enter Mildred, replete with a baby, and in her usual need of being taken care of. Exit heartbroken Norah. Another separation from Mildred and Carey begins a long-term friendship with Sally, abetted enthusiastically by her dad who seems to view eventual marriage as both a good thing for the two young people and a chance to be relieved of one of his nine offspring.The movie reasonably but not entirely follows Maugham's excellent novel. Howard's Carey is naive and vulnerable and for much of the movie his sad eyes remind one of a doe facing a double-barreled shotgun. Mildred is unrestrainedly wicked, a user of the worst kind, her sole preoccupation with her own needs barely disguised when she tries to wheedle Carey with a thin patina of affectionate words (and offers-at one point she promises she'll do \"anything [he] wants,\" a daring statement for the times and one I'm sure audiences fully understood.Pre-Code it may be but Mildred's quick-march dissolution would have satisfied the League of Catholic Decency. The ending is conventional-sin loses, principled behavior triumphs.Director John Cromwell wrought excellent performances from his two main stars, one well-established, the other established largely because of this film. The atmosphere is 1930s London and the trip back in time is worth taking.Available on DVD.9/10 (for Davis's and Howard's performances) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca803828908c41bd817ccffbcf8b6a43", "input": "Review: My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie \"Frogs\", \"Night of the Lepus\", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in \"Stargate\"!See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes \"Chicken Soup For The Soul\" sound like BF SkinnerFeel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert \"Mike Brady\" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d0a17f1270b74af6825ea43d46b69867", "input": "Review: Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-06b46050206a4735afbdafe4a2202e62", "input": "Review: Jörg Buttgereit goes a bit too far with his movies and themes at times, even for my taste but his movies are always something special and hard to classify. They are artistically made, with also often deeper meaning to its themes. This movie is a perfect example of his work.It's also really hard to label this movie. It's not really a movie with a story to it, in a sense of having a beginning, middle and end in it. It also doesn't have a main character but instead focuses on 7 different suicides and killings, on 7 different days.All different stories are being told with lots of class, though some of them are of course more 'interesting' and realistic than the others. They are not necessarily connected but yet together they still tell a story. The movie doesn't feel disjointed at all. All different stories have a different feel to it and Buttgereit tells the story without hardly using any words (also typical for his style) but instead lets the images and obvious sensible emotions of the characters tell the entire story. It helps to make this movie an effective one to watch.Again, the production values all aren't too high and this might be something that might scare off some people. It however helps for this particular movie to set the right tone and atmosphere for the entire movie and its dark, disturbing and depressing themes.A Buttgereit movie that I 'enjoyed' watching.7/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a143e338619e46fc8df84b3c3513dcd2", "input": "Review: The premise of the story is simple: An old man living alone in the woods accidentally stumble upon a murder of a small child, and tries to convince the police that the murder has occurred. Though very little dialog is provided throughout the film, the visual narrative told by the camera's eye alone made the film quite engaging. The setting of the gray woods conveys a feeling of loneliness, which complements the quietness of the characters themselves. We can also sense helplessness in the old man's inability to convince the police of the murder, which parallels the silenced child's inability to tell her own story.True horror lies in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and irrationality. This film successfully addresses these elements by visuals alone, rather than relying on cheap sound effects or blood and gore that other bad horror films use when the narrative is weak.Cleverly, the story unfolds at a slow pace to build up tension for a few creepy and startling moments. The ending is also unexpected and believable. Reminiscent of Japanese horror films, such as \"The Ring,\" and \"Dark Water,\" or English horror films, such as \"Lady in Black,\" and \"The Innocents,\" this film provides viewers the experience of true atmosphere horror. I recommend anyone who enjoys a good chilling to the bone scare to give this film a try.By the way, if you haven't seen the films I just mentioned above, you might want to give them a try as well. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ab5329d7ede4ebf8e7466149f7836c4", "input": "Review: One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title \"Honolulu 1944\" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b9bd74192b904782a41e4215b9485ef8", "input": "Review: I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88ac06e3fb9140e3997b1540e946380d", "input": "Review: Very good except for the ending which was a huge disappointment.The script was very good as was the acting. The visuals were often very grainy but this in a way added to the film as the snowy features were in good places that helped create a mood towards the film. This affect was ruined by the extremely unbelievable ending. I was going to give this film an 8 out of ten but the ending knocked it down a point to 7 because it seemed to depart radically from the first 75 minutes of the movie and seemed quite forced at the end to make the film makers look clever. This movie though was much better than films with quite a lot larger budgets and seemed to be filmed like a home movie with some extra equipment. Not much in the way of special effects as these go but for suspense it was very good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa307b01193c449c86e22c1e47f8a5aa", "input": "Review: Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-db747e6f2c38420eb16b30d17f88c7db", "input": "Review: The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1d70bb9c435d4f8bb1b5c61a04d2cbf4", "input": "Review: Robin Williams and Kurt Russell play guys in their 30's who put their marraiges in jeopardy by deciding (Russell somewhat reluctantly) to replay their heartbreaking tie with rival Bakersfield years after the fact. Williams is ok, but Russell is flat-out great as legendary Taft quarterback Remo Hightower. Holly Palance does a nice and attractive turn as Williams' wife, who could live without this rematch. Film is worth watching just to see the famed Remo in action. Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-823c524261984af99d5db3aea4cf6c86", "input": "Review: The story-line was rather interesting, but the characters were rather flat and at times too extreme in their thoughts/behavior. More extreme than necessary. Also, I think something went wrong in the casting. John Turtorro doesn't really satisfy me playing a semi-autistic chess player, not to speak of the Italian player. Motives weren't very much outlined either. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-33fa067309824e899ce3993773f70471", "input": "Review: Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dc37e8782ce742eca324153407698b7b", "input": "Review: Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me. I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day. You just have to love the care bears, and their messege. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d8ff736ec0e4891843801168e074d74", "input": "Review: A team of archaeologists uncover a real treasure – the Crown of the Queen of Sheeba. From Egypt, the crown is to be transferred via steamship to San Francisco. But it won't be an easy journey. There are plenty of would-be thieves who would love to get their hands on the priceless jewels contained in the crown. Fortunately for all involved, Mr. Moto is on hand to guard the crown on its journey. However, that doesn't mean someone won't try to get their hands on the treasure.After the disappointment of Mr. Moto's Gamble, I went into Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation hoping for the best, but, admittedly, fearing the worst. But within the first 10 seconds of the film, I knew I would find it more enjoyable. I'm a sucker for a 1930s style mystery that features anything to do with archaeological digs in Egypt. And seeing Moto disguised as a German archaeologist (Imagine that, Peter Lorre playing a German?), the beginning scenes really drew me in. While the movie may have quickly shifted to the less exotic San Francisco, it remained just as enjoyable. Dark, sinister characters lurking in the rainy night; gunshots fired from open windows that narrowly miss the hero's head; sophisticated and supposed foolproof alarm systems just begging for someone to test them; and master criminals believed to be dead – these are the kind of elements found in a lot of the really good 1930s mysteries that I love. And Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation's got 'em all. A couple other bonuses for me included the always enjoyable Lionel Atwill in a nice little role, comic relief from G.P. Huntley that's actually funny, and a return to form for Mr. Moto. I've already mentioned his disguise in the movie's opening scenes, well the athletic Moto comes out near the film's finale. Moto is a like a Whirling Dervish of activity as he goes after his prey. All this and I haven't even mentioned the wonderful performance turned in by Lorre. Any way you look at it, Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation is a winner.As much as I hate that the Mr. Moto series had to end after this installment, it's understandable when you think about it. WWII was just around the corner. And after Pearl Harbor, a movie with a Japanese hero wouldn't have gone over very well. At least the Mr. Moto series ended on a very positive note. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc06d09bd1244f7dab5f016dce915a52", "input": "Review: The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7744404c95124e5594addf5e5d811d71", "input": "Review: This episode from the first season slightly edges towards controversy with the whole gender bending angle.I imagine there would have been a significant amount of editing before this was finished to appease censors.The story itself is original and well written and the directing is complemented by the fine acting.(Nicholas Lea makes his X-Files debut though not as Agent Krycek but as a victim called Michael) I especially enjoyed the built up to and the ending itself.Its different but enjoyable.Ignore any bad reviews you may hear.Watch it for yourself and make judgement then Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-04fbef691dd0478a8d1de8b1e3af8f72", "input": "Review: there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless. boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -as it is, it's a real hoot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6d7d192abc346c6b324e2a52471a689", "input": "Review: I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed \"Hot Shots\" and \"The Naked Gun\" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, \"This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?\" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a989861f798b49dfbba713b2df823efa", "input": "Review: I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain. I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh. If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- \"Mystery Science Theater\" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself. I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70b1458a1e994cb9b0c67f4ede0813df", "input": "Review: It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good \"B\" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7725f6d86fdd4b739b045834fcf76851", "input": "Review: I'm one of those people who usually watch programs and keep my feelings about a show private. However, Pushing Daisies is my exception. I became curious about the program from the commercials that aired which gave glimpses of the premise of the show. I was skeptical about it at first, especially after the finale of Six Feet Under was still in my head. Here we go again, I thought. I watched the first, second, third and all the other episodes. Wow! First of all, I thought it took the subject of death and presented in a way that was palatable without being morbid. The characters were engaging and I like the thought of Ned the main character not being able to literally touch the love of his life, Chuck without the consequences of her dying.Most of the characters have a longing for things they can't have. Besides Ned and Chuck, Olive longs for Ned. Lily and Vivian longs for their niece Chuck and Emerson is always longing for the monetary rewards from the mysterious deaths they solve. I think the characters are picture perfect and believable. I like how Emerson who is black plays off of the rest of the characters since as an African American; I like the subtle cultural humor that sometimes comes from him.All in all, this visual fairytale is one of the most valuable pieces of entertainment that I've seen out of the 2007 season. I think the show has enough romance for the romantics and enough who-done-it for the mystery buffs. I just wish the writers would get back to work, so that the show can continue to evolve. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae1d1c0797874c88a4cbd1258ff79a49", "input": "Review: I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERSI think I need to puke now Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c1dad26605e40b3b2ce9a0da1e11ff9", "input": "Review: i think the team behind this film did a very good job with the limitations they had. only £300,000 and 7 weeks to write, film and edit the whole thing which i think is an achievement in itself. although this film is not for the masses (as a young innocent teenage girl is killed and there is homo-eroticism involved in the story) i think that this film is a heart wrenching tragedy and the more deeply involved you get in the story, the more sadness you feel. more so towards Heaton because of the love he feels but is not returned.this is one of my favourite British films that i enjoyed very much and would watch again. i think that it's a shame that is film is not very well heard of at all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed335978320344bc81e071829ccabbdd", "input": "Review: While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.As for the impressions of the pilot...The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the \"feel\" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a \"generic\" Trek story with the themes of \"exploration\" and \"first step towards space\" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series. The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the \"action\". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of \"the wind\" and being on \"the sea\" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.We had the feeling more that humans were the \"freshmen\" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b0a2c2e2649e491180bf17f12792df4c", "input": "Review: Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying \"It's so bad that it's good?\" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e3d762cbb41d4541b9a4e744b90c1b5d", "input": "Review: Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, \"I'll just call you Jackass then\"???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2417c14ea7904032aa0297fbd99afccc", "input": "Review: Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3df55790becc4344aa56f25461627862", "input": "Review: A couple(Janet and Richard) go camping out in the woods near a giant swamp. After camping and enjoying nature, the couple takes shelter in what they think is an abandoned farm house. Soon, a pair of escaped convicts show up and, after much delaying of the inevitable, they proceed to rape Janet and lock Richard in a birdcage.This LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-like film has to be one of the most underrated horror films ever made. It's one of the more sick and twisted early 70s shockers. Moreover, I found this to be quite enchanting and beautiful in it's perverse tone. I love CAGED TERROR. The music definitely helps lend a sense of personality to the film as well as a lot of beauty. I found the film to be quite creepy.The flaws mainly have to do with the pacing of the film, which is to say that the film is rather slow and meandering. While I didn't mind the pacing due to the beauty and suspense of the film in question, I do think that it will both most people. The acting isn't too good nor is the dialogue, at least in the early scenes. This film takes a little more patience than usual, and it's really not for everyone.In short, this was a good film. Not the greatest horror film I've ever seen, but it is certainly a lot of fun. It's not exactly the easiest film to find. It's possible to find it in the USED section of a lot of stores if you look hard enough. It's not for everyone, but if you're a fan of trash cinema then it's definitely worth checking out. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0d94f054cc174b09b9d7819f8ecde72d", "input": "Review: Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, Ralph Richardson, and Binnie Barnes star in \"The Divorce of Lady X,\" a 1938 comedy based on a play. Olivier plays a young barrister, Everard Logan who allows Oberon to spend the night in his hotel room, when the London fog is too dense for guests at a costume ball to go home. The next day, a friend of his, Lord Mere (Richardson), announces that his wife (Barnes) spent the night with another man at the same hotel, and he wants to divorce her. Believing the woman to be Oberon, Olivier panics. Oberon, who is single and the granddaughter of a judge, pretends that she's the lady in question, Lady Mere, when she's really Leslie Steele.We've seen this plot or variations thereof dozens of time. With this cast, it's delightful. I mean, Richardson and Olivier? Olivier and Oberon, that great team in Wuthering Heights? Pretty special. Olivier is devastatingly handsome and does a great job with the comedy as he portrays the uptight, nervous barrister. Oberon gives her role the right light touch. She looks extremely young here, fuller in the face, with Jean Harlow eyebrows and a very different hairdo for her. She wears some beautiful street clothes, though her first gown looks like a birthday cake, and in one gown she tries on, with that hair-do, she's ready to play Snow White. Binnie Barnes is delightful as the real Lady Mere.The color in this is a mess, and as others have mentioned, it could really use a restoration. Definitely worth seeing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99d2ee783171486386f15788eea6fd8c", "input": "Review: Now, many would think to stay away from this movie just because of the title. If you do not have the stomach for gory movies, then what are you doing reading this review? Anyhow, I borrowed the video from a friend of mine and fell in love with this movie immediately. This movie is chock full of wonderful gore, plus the usual other ingredients that make up a b-movie add up to one hell of a viewing experience! If you're a lover of good quality experiences, then by all means, watch this great flick! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c1765e9310a43e8b3015f23bd0e7bac", "input": "Review: I liked this movie a lot. The animation was well done and the romance was cute. I liked most of Bryan Adams' songs and the Hans Zimmer score was excellent. What a lot of people don't realize is how well it relates to the Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now themes (what happens when so-called \"civilization\" invades someone elses home, what does it mean to be \"civilized\" etc.). The opening scenery and music were very stirring. The film is a lament to an America that was once beautiful. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7195ac94d3e46c0a5f444f74742fb9c", "input": "Review: The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan \"Never been kissed\") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called \"Clarissa Darling \" or Sabrina Spellman\"I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4f8298433c145dc9ce7c1e9708e392d", "input": "Review: Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their \"immortal soul\" can be resolved later.Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c701af97cbf04089af7fffb6c25b56a8", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-68da454a93794af3b5b14fe802dd8000", "input": "Review: This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these \"stunt posteriors\" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, \"reveal\" themselves! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed384510dad743118fd8bd4d4524f4f7", "input": "Review: Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame \"hunters\" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.By comparison, JASON X: \"FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE\" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9cecc1fca144ecd9273afe3cfc23e6a", "input": "Review: It was hard for me to believe all of the negative comments regarding this all-star flick. I laughed through the entire picture, as did my entire family. The movie clearly defined itself as an old time gangster comedy--the players were hysterical--I'll bet they had a good old time while making it. Of course Goldblum and Dreyfuss were great--and how about those Everly sisters, each of the two Falco's, and the divine music throughout. Rob Reiner made a great laughing limo driver, and Gabriel Byrne a laughable neurotic. Not to mention Gregory Hines, Burt Reynolds, the Sleepy Joe character and the whole mortuary and grave digger references. Paul Anka was his usual entertaining self, with the added attraction of running scared after Byrne decided to make a duet of his \"My Way\" welcome home to Vick performance.I am of the opinion that this movie was a comical tribute to Frank Sinatra and friends; Dreyfuss imitated him well. I am also of the opinion that no one, of any age, would even think of imitating the actions which occurred in this movie--it's a joke--not a terrifying \"gangsta\" film. The cars and clothing were impressive, as was the decorative, \"Vic's Place.\"Truly, I think of \"Mad Dog Time\" as a musical comedy, less harmful than many cartoons, TV crime dramas, and talk shows. I would recommend the video for an evening of family entertainment. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-327cac39149d42e99143135a54d0c0ca", "input": "Review: I grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aeec6cd503a04ae9adfd0a850b2e468a", "input": "Review: Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the \"young\" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a \"bath\" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f814b6af9ea943ff9831b3c73d876b01", "input": "Review: Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problem—brilliant stuff! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dbc339e1f7264821a5ed672cf0c250f5", "input": "Review: And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!Before I saw \"The Young Victoria\", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it. Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design! The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother! BRAVO: 9 out of 10! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f6de7247e3948d9816aa91ae78b2e9d", "input": "Review: Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.Below average \"horror\" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.King has his usual cameo as the minister.Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7790e6a981354f819da2f8f71943d1e3", "input": "Review: Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd25c25352364bac99e475fdbb323e5c", "input": "Review: Absolutely one of the worst movies of all time.Low production values, terrible story idea, bad script, lackluster acting... and I can't even come up with an adjective suitably descriptive for how poor Joan River's directing is. I know that there's a special place in Hell for the people who financed this film; prolly right below the level reserved for child-raping genocidal maniacs.This movie is a trainwreck.(Terrible) x (infinity) = Rabbit Test.Avoid this at all costs.It's so bad, it isn't even funny how bad it is. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7b4cee674aff4899be1f470ecdcc4520", "input": "Review: The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b05b79bd52a04ef7988cefd7aa08f600", "input": "Review: This thought long lost flick sometimes comes available on the web. So I bought me a copy. Well, of course the acting is terrible and the story line is childish but it does have his moments. I think people who searched this one also knows the backstory of it. It was made by a grindhouse cinema owner for an extreme low budget. But for me he surely didn't spoiled the money on props but on the make up. The make up is for that kind of flick well done. The zombies are watchable and the gore is intact. The only problem with that kind of movies is the quality of the pelicule. It's terrible, luckely no hiss on the sound but sometimes it's way too dark. So you have to watch clearly to see the gore. In a funny way they tried to sell this one as really not for the squeamish. A voice-over tells in the beginning of the movie to watch out for a sign and a man appearing with green flashes, that tells you there is gore on the way. Of course that doesn't work, made me think of Cannibal Girls, had that annoying bell when the red stuff started to flow. They had the original idea, Cannibal Girls was made a year earlier. Don't go for the storyline, go for the zombies and notice a continuity mistake. When the girl and guy are making love first she takes of her bra, then they make love and suddenly her underwear is back on...try to do that, or am I getting a bit offline,...eat it you ugly corpses Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd41e0bcfad74a1e9da44e02c9049687", "input": "Review: This game was really great and quite a challenge. It has a great, spooky story line and the graphics are also very good. I would recommend this game to all Horror fans and is very gripping from start to finish. The only problem with this game is that i would have liked more weapons but thats just me. A truly great game for RPG and Shoot'em'up fans.> Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d8141164931403da69f27ce9613990c", "input": "Review: I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2fe7715c8d94eaebd16345495e30fdf", "input": "Review: Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing \"world music\" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with \"baskets on their heads\" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for \"life in transformation.\"But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.RstJ Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53d59eaf6bee4da892247ffd0fa70c4f", "input": "Review: Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be4c0c2d94b545d89c8898da4f8fe7b2", "input": "Review: Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53de87b6efd04390894625e52ce9a1c2", "input": "Review: Marvelous James Stewart, Vera Miles vehicle. What makes this historical film dealing with the FBI so good is the family element that is involved during a 35 year career as depicted by Stewart in the film.The film shows a history of the great investigatory agency. It deals with airplane bomb plots, killing off of Indians in Oklahoma for real estate gain, fighting organized crime, Nazis and Communists in that order. The human element is never far behind as Stewart weds Vera Miles. They raise 3 children as Miles' heart goes out each time Stewart goes out on assignment.Look for a brief but memorable performance by Murray Hamilton. Years later, he appeared as Mr. Robinson in 1967's \"The Graduate.\"The film has nothing but praise for J. Edgar Hoover. He certainly brought the FBI up to par.True, this could be viewed as right-wing propaganda, especially with Stewart's real-life Republican views, but it's well done, historically informative, and the view of the family so well depicted. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9d0dff60d7d44498fc73cb5e68656f9", "input": "Review: Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, \"That's it?\" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1aefcc8bdf09476595caa4fc606955e2", "input": "Review: This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-991bdff8a6994b46a4d6d927353beaa6", "input": "Review: I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2fc164bcf1a94e759f856702e0ac27fd", "input": "Review: I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's \"walk on Moon\". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-88b7580f767f49318597f58ab6baff2a", "input": "Review: I came to NEW PORT SOUTH expecting a surrogate movie about the Columbine school massacre similar to Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and certainly the synopsis in the TV guide stating that a student sociopath rebels against the system did give me that impression but this is a very boring movie where little happens so consider yourself warned The story is about Maddox , a Chicago high school student who decides to strike back at what he perceives to be an authoritarian regime . The major problem is that the character is underwritten and the actor who plays him Blake Shields is unable to embellish any script deficiencies . You have the gut feeling that Maddox should have the evil charisma of Hitler , Saddam or Bin Laden but he never comes across as anything more than a petulant truculent teenager and it's impossible to believe he could rally any disciples . The subtext of you overthrow one manipulative authoritarian regime only to replace it with another manipulative regime is too obvious which means NEW PORT SOUTH is an entirely unconvincing drama that's not worth going out of your way to see Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b83cae92c95c4ca8ba08ee790eafff34", "input": "Review: I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it \"it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem\".Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called \"The machine that changed the world\" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc6006ea81204d809828cd6141f6d5a7", "input": "Review: I really felt cheated after seeing this picture. It felt like I sat watching this movie 101 minutes for nothing. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made this. It hardly gets into Jeffrey Dahmer murdering and it has no ending. It felt almost like they were leaving this movie open for a sequel. It was like watching a television episode of the Sopranos. It ends suddenly, and you know there's going to be another episode next week. It also felt like I just watched part 1 to a two part movie. There are many possibilities for what went wrong here; they got lazy, they ran out of money, they didn't know the rest of the story, they wanted to make a Dahmer 2. After seeing this movie they all sound very accurate. I was watching Jeffrey Dahmer walking through the woods. All of a sudden I hear this music playing, then writing comes on the screen and says how Dahmer served 2 years of his sentence and was attacked by a fellow inmate and killed at the age of 34. Wow, he goes from a walk in the woods to his death in jail. How about showing how he got there. How about showing Dahmer's trial. How about showing some more detail. I can't even explain what happened in this movie because it jumped all over the place. I actually found myself saying in disbelief, \"That's it, that's the end?\" I want to conclude this review by saying there is still a good Dahmer movie yet to be made. To the filmmakers I'd like to say, if you're going to do it, do it right. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1f96fa0831042719f77712f48aa48b4", "input": "Review: This is a film which had eluded me thus far but, now that I've watched it, emerges as one of the major entries in the noir style. As usual with the DivX format, the viewing was far from ideal – marred by the occasional video and (mostly) audio glitches – but, given that the film is still unavailable on R1 DVD, this will have to do for the moment. Since the film's reputation is quite high within the genre itself, I assume that the reason behind this oversight is because it does not have a well-known actor in the lead.Anyway, the belated entrance of the film's nominal star – Franchot Tone – packs quite a wallop (especially as he is shown to be the villain from the first)! Tone was a underrated actor – he was rarely given meaty roles, and this may well be his best (making his paranoiac both fascinating and believably dangerous). The female lead – Ella Raines, who would later feature in BRUTE FORCE (1947) as well as Siodmak's own THE SUSPECT (1944) and THE STRANGE AFFAIR OF UNCLE HARRY (1945) – is quite lovely and capably takes on the role of the distraught secretary out to prove her convicted boss (Alan Baxter) innocent of his wife's brutal murder. Other key supporting parts are essayed by Thomas Gomez as the initially bullying but ultimately sympathetic police investigator, and Elisha Cook Jr. – the genre's quintessential fall guy – as an ill-fated \"ladies' man\" of a percussionist.Like BRUTE FORCE's Jules Dassin, Siodmak was on a noir roll at this point in his career and this film definitely benefits from his superb direction – all tilted angles and terrific set-pieces, including the justly celebrated jazz sequence in which Cook manically beats on his drums in a sexual frenzy brought on by the sluttishly-attired Raines (who is putting on an act to get his attention and eventually drive him to confess that he withheld evidence at the inquest which could spring her resigned lover from jail). Another great, lengthy sequence is the one in which Raines follows a bartender (another uncooperative witness) around the streets of New York – which results in his being mowed down by a car! Notable, too, is the trial sequence – which is entirely depicted through the audience's reaction so that judge, jury, witnesses and D.A. are never actually seen (although the judge's voice is recognizably that of veteran character actor Samuel S. Hinds). The centerpiece of the film is the scene in which Gomez and Tone discuss the nature of the criminal involved, with the inspector's put down of the latter as mentally insane giving the initially smug Tone \"dizzy spells\". The suspenseful climax finds Raines alone with Tone in his apartment, where she discovers evidence of his guilt – and he confesses to having had an affair with Baxter's wife, but killed her when she wouldn't desert her husband for him.By the way, I hit upon a little goof in the film: while the story is clearly set in 1943, I noticed that during the taxi cab ride towards the beginning of the film – in which Alan Curtis escorts the titular lady to the theater – the establishing shot of New York (comprising clearly of stock footage) features a marquee promoting Laurel and Hardy's 1938 musical comedy, SWISS MISS! Incidentally, famed mystery writer Cornell Woolrich wrote the original novel on which this was based using a pseudonym. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e66687c1f04346bb83b8b0f393e22e12", "input": "Review: I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6ce61b26bb042778a7359be78d43c1c", "input": "Review: 'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed \"Lubitsch touch\" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States – perhaps in the blustery streets of New York – but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film – in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1b8abe985bad4c8eb730c1c47c585d87", "input": "Review: ...And that's why hard to rate. From the adult point of view (hmm, student point of view:)). i must say i fell nearly asleep here. Sure, there is some laughing scene (all the credit takes here Eddie), but that can't save the disney type of script and whole movie, that's why2 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8285745036c642b99ddfa86a248eb503", "input": "Review: As I am no fan of almost any post-\"Desperate Living\" John Waters films, I warmed to \"Pecker\". After he emerged from the underground, Waters produced trash-lite versions of his earlier works (\"Cry Baby\", \"Polyester\", Hairspray\") that to die-hard fans looked and tasted like watered down liqueur. \"Pecker\", which doesn't attempt to regurgitate early successes, is a slight, quiet, humble commentary on the vagaries of celebrity and the pretentiousness of the art world. Waters clearly knows this subject well because he has also exhibited and sold (at ridiculous prices) some of the most amateurish pop art ever created that you couldn't imagine anyone being able to give away if it wasn't emblazoned with the Waters \"name\". Edward Furlong is fine as \"Pecker\" and Waters' non-histrionic style is at ease with the subject. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db12d16ec680402cbab8c63d43463835", "input": "Review: Fear of a black hat is a hilarious spoof of Hip-Hop culture. It is just as funny as This Is Spinal Tap, if not funnier. The actors are incredible and the documentary style is superb. Mark Christopher Lawrence is a tremendous talent that should be starring in a lot more films. This film is a true cult classic! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-624e018f27a34f19af772cca18e21a3f", "input": "Review: My first review of 2010 is \"Into The Blue 2: The Reef\". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-068b5909559f4507b33b2f7d3e676ba6", "input": "Review: Call me adolescent but I really do think that this is a great series. If you haven't had a chance to experience a few episodes of the latest Star Trek series, you should definitely watch this one. Perhaps more compelling than that of Voyager's Caretaker, which launched the series with Cpt. Janeway, Archer's adventures are completely different, yet strangely familiar...The music is catchy too. No true Sci-fi fan can go without seeing at least one Star Trek episode--and these installments make the wait worthwhile. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-363920ae3c6c49e6a407ba331206d0f7", "input": "Review: That's right, you heard me this movie is a freaking' ABOMINATION. First off, the band, who the hell is going to go see or listen to a band called \"THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND\"?!?! Not only is the name terrible but so are the musicians, they can't even play anything! Also, the lead singer sounds more girly than Geddy Lee, and even more his voice is horrible! Not only are they terrible musicians but they're terrible actors. Led by a crappy director and thin plot, this has got to be the dumbest movie ever. I wish this website would let you use a vote of ZERO OR BELOW out of 10, because giving this filth a 1/10 is being WAY too generous.I'm not sure that you can call this a comedy film. If you're looking for comedy with music, go to that \"Weird Al\" Yankovic guy 'cause he does it a whole lot better than these untalented tweens. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9af4dc96be7f4d25857ca96667a99e59", "input": "Review: This is te cartoon that should have won instead of Country Cousin. Visually well-done and much more entertaining and memorable. Worth watching just for the music alone! Although there are elements that undoubtably will bruise the sensibilities of some these days, the cartoon has to be given a bit of perspective. It's over sixty years old and it is, after all, just a cartoon. I'm disabled and if I were as hyper-sensitive as the folks who look at things like this cartoon and take umbrage, I would have long since curled up in a fetal position and faded away. Sometimes you need to lighten up, put your head back and float! Caricatures of celebrities in cartoons were common in the 1930s and 1940s and were almost never terribly flattering. Bing Crosby reportedly hated it when he was used on more than one occasion. *SIGH* Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3332df55b524ca68a2cd226ee603f20", "input": "Review: One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4afdbb73c1fd4eba8fb6b6477ecd225b", "input": "Review: i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dde3d993a1ec4425808d8cb9b5c88d98", "input": "Review: Intriguing. Exciting. Dramatic. Explosive. Complex. Epic. Words that only touch the tip of the iceberg in terms of the grand story that is LOST being told.From the acting down to the rare visual effects, LOST is the essential show on television for fans of science-fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, and lots and lots of mystery.Each cast member is so well chosen, and so good in their roles, that you either love them, or hate them, or downright wish them dead.The visual effects, when used (which is rare) are actually quite well done considering the usual production of shows. Be it the \"smoke monster\", to the polar bears, LOST is believable in terms of eye-candy.As far as story goes, nothing can compare to the vast complexity this show has made viewers like me endure. Beginning to End, continuity is virtually perfect, characters are developed, and the ever-evolving story slowly gives the answers to its questions so many crave.Overall, there is practically no flaw in LOST. It does for dramatic/sci-fi television what Arrested Development did for comedy: it has set the bar.I highly recommend LOST to those that are patient, intellectual, and love every moment of the ride, no matter how long it takes to reach the end.See this show. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-88531491ff2f4f609514b691c3786211", "input": "Review: As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men – whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies – so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you – an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions …I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us – tetanus.4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c2b9ff185e494fbdb1960017fccbbd13", "input": "Review: One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-136c2f086ca34f5ea26999e39cd614b2", "input": "Review: This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2bdbad11d7e5433480a4e8cc63bbabe0", "input": "Review: A FROLICS OF YOUTH Short Subject.A teenager, embarrassed by his fear of dogs, runs away from home. The abandoned spaniel he finds helps to change his mind.PARDON MY PUPS is an enjoyable little film, with Shirley Temple stealing all her scenes as the hero's lively kid sister. The opening gag - dealing with bedwetting - is in poor taste, but is quickly forgotten. Highlight: the climactic fisticuffs, which look impressively realistic.Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-704f5edfd7ef4d1c927a2c51087e3f7f", "input": "Review: This is one of my favorite films of all time. Al Pacino acting is at its best and the story is excellent. Too bad it didn't do to well in the 80's when it was first released because people didn't get a chance to experience this classic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8e5f6818db546239379d470a5bb46b4", "input": "Review: First, let me say that Notorious is an absolutely charming film, very lovingly rendered of its time and subject(s). Gretchen Mol is utterly, painfully convincing, the very soul of the contradictions smoothly reified by Ms. Page herself. Irving and Paula Klaw are richly drawn as the working-class stiffs they were (having met Paula at Movie Star News in 1990 I can say that Lili Taylor's performance is unimpeachable), and Jared Harris as John Willie (Coutts) is an adoringly debauched genius. Anyone with an interest in the recorded history of American attitudes toward sexuality must see this movie, in a theater preferably, where votes made with dollars count more.Second, I will allow that I am a producer of material similar to that for which the Klaws would become famous, which is no way affects my estimation of Ms. Harron's work as the splendid piece that it is, but does condition my view of Notorious as an act of political resistance of the first order. Ms. Harron has crafted a work of subtle subversion. Along with V for Vendetta, it is a movie about another time for our times.Few readers of this site will be aware that the government they will see enacted in Notorious (through transcription of the very words uttered in closed Senate committee hearings) is a very close approximation of the one they live under right now. While Ms. Harron expressly disallows that she has a political agenda appended to this film, her faithfulness to the facts, and the respectful and unsensational way in which she renders them, synchronizes Notorious with the present day. The very acts that Notorious portrays in loving and accurate detail are defined as obscene by the Communications Decency Act, recently brought to the Supreme Court as a First Amendment case and turned back there at the behest of the Bush administration. In other words, the delicate and ineffectual bondage depicted in Notorious is indictable today by Federal prosecutors in whatever (hostile) jurisdiction they choose. Of course, there were no hearings in the Senate or elsewhere on this matter when the CDA was passed. Of course you know nothing about it, because you don't want people in Peoria telling you what you can and cannot look at (likewise, people in Peoria probably don't want me telling them what they're allowed to view). Of course Notorious will never be indicted. It's Hollywood. It's lawyered up. Countless Klaws will, however, continue to be steamrolled by a puritanical bureaucracy that has not advanced its aesthetic, moral or biological composition much in 50+ years.In addition, Notorious posts no 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, which is mandated by the unnoticed \"earmark\" recently voted into law. If any media contains images of \"sadomasochistic restraint\" it is required to make available (ex warrant) records of age and circumstance of all performers. Notorious fails in this regard also.In addition to being a splendid piece of entertainment and an (nearly) accurate historical document, Notorious will be the litmus against which the Bush Justice Department is itself judged with respect to the 14th (Equal Protection) Amendment and on perhaps several other Constitutional grounds. In this regard alone, a debt of gratitude is owed Mary Harron. You'll be grateful in any case, Constitutional or otherwise, if you see this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22814d374aee4f7abf5ffccbd192f771", "input": "Review: I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk. This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.Oh dear... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-96ec9485672a4f64869f3625156b3e4c", "input": "Review: While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdc672233d984873a8c7647ca0ee6cbd", "input": "Review: I love a good war film and I fall into the \"been there, done that\" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.It started off with me shouting at the TV saying \"you wouldn't do that\" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the \"Contact Right\" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!Not recommended...it will just bore you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8d88c20e69f24b4596132391ae2b8078", "input": "Review: This movie is goofy as hell! I think it was written as a serious film, but then when it came time to film, Michael Cooney said \"Hey, let's throw in some humor and spice it up!\" The characters are actually slightly developed, too. Oh, and the death sequences are the best. One thing I hate, though, was the hairdryer-weapons. What was that all about? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5f26d30f888d488fa4dd27512498005d", "input": "Review: Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ---- Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-71ae79983ced4f1bbc426e931d1b571a", "input": "Review: or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it \"wishi-washi\"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.It simply doesn't work.The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.That's a big difference.This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting \"I spend a night with superman\". Warner Brothers, that's too much.Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9394cc2ac8904789baf0f4ebc37ef76e", "input": "Review: Sergio Martino is a great director, who has contributed a lot to Italian genre cinema and, as far as I am considered, his Gialli from the 1970s are the undisputed highlights in his impressive repertoire. \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" aka. \"The Case Of The Scorpion's Tale\" of 1971 is one of these impressive films Martino has contributed to Italian Horror's most original sub-genre, and another proof that the man is a master of atmosphere, style and suspense. My personal favorite of the Martino films I've seen so far is still the insanely brilliant \"Your Vice Is A Locked Room And Only I Have The Key\" of 1972, followed by \"Torso\" (1973) and \"The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh\" (1971), all of which I personally like even more than this one. That's purely a matter of personal taste, however, as \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is an equally excellent film that is essential for every fan of Italian Horror cinema and suspense in general.The film, which delivers tantalizing suspense from the very beginning has a complex and gripping plot that begins with the mysterious demise of a millionaire who has died in a plane crash. Insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton) is assigned to verify the circumstances the insurance company which is due to pay a large sum to the deceased man's wife. Soon after Lynch begins to investigate, a person is brutally killed, which is just the beginning of a series of murders...\"The Case of the Scorpion's Tail\" excellently delivers all the elements a great Giallo needs. The film is stunningly suspenseful from the beginning, the score by Bruno Nicolai is brilliant, the plot is wonderfully convoluted, and the killer's identity remains a mystery until the end. Regular Giallo leading-man George Hilton once again delivers an excellent performance in the lead. Sexy Anita Strindberg is absolutely ravishing in the female lead. The includes the great Luigi Pistilli, one of the most brilliant regulars of Italian genre-cinema of the 60s and 70s, and Alberto De Mendoza, another great actor who should be familiar to any lover of Italian cinema. Athens, where most of the film takes place, is actually a great setting for a Giallo. The atmosphere is constantly gripping, and the photography great, and Bruno Nicolai's ingenious score makes the suspense even more intense. Long story short: \"La Coda Dello Scorpione\" is another excellent Giallo from Sergio Martino and an absolute must-see for any lover of the sub-genre! Stylish, suspenseful, and great in all regards! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-95dbcc3f5be54388a51fad12c4ba1043", "input": "Review: Run away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0bed23fa65774c04a308f84f377747c6", "input": "Review: I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-28cfe7cc934142beac7cac6cd8e26037", "input": "Review: An enjoyable Batman animated film. Not on par with \"Return of the Joker\" or \"Mask of the Phantasm\", but solid nonetheless. I liked how the movie kept you guessing as to who Batwoman was. There was nice twist. Nice action sequences. I've always been of the opinion that the Batman cartoons are better then any of the pitiful Batman live action film sequels. The trend continues here.7.5 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-adbcf250bab8434c89cf1a915c9b6aa1", "input": "Review: A great Bugs Bunny cartoon from the earlier years has Bugs as a performer in an window display at a local department store. After he's done for the day the manager comes in to tell him that he'll be transferring soon. Bugs is happy to oblige into he figures out that the new job is in taxidermy...and that taxidermy has to do with stuffing animals. Animals like say, a certain rabbit. This causes a battle of wits between the rascally rabbit and his now former employer. I found this short to be delightful and definitely one of the better ones of the early 1940's. It still remains as funny nearly 60+ years later. This animated short can be seen on Disc 1 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.My Grade: A- Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-563f2a391f894a729e300a0c0246f67b", "input": "Review: I really have to disagree with guy-yardley-rees who (should he have watched the entire film) would have seen some absolutely stunning Scottish scenery (some of the best ever shot in Skye) and found a film with a difficult start come together into a really poignant whole.This is not a big budget film. Rather it is a film that has a strong community feel.I can't say how much 'standard' films bore me - pushing out the same polished stuff again and again. Seachd doesn't seem to be about that at all. It really seems to be trying to offer something more real and certainly more Gaelic than any recent Scottish film.OK, so the acting isn't in the style a blockbuster. That's because the actors are seemingly real people. I actually thought that the key roles of the boy and his Grandfather were really convincing - and at times unusually beautiful.Seachd really bears a second viewing, since there are many threads that become clearer second time around - that really do feed into the ending.Overall, the combination of music and (at times) stunning visuals, plus a community approach to the acting and non-normal structure has turned Seachd into quite a distinctive and memorable film. More of these please! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-684e6d9a7dc84a53872add310e4cde7a", "input": "Review: Some moron who read or saw some reference to angels coming to Earth, decided to disregard what he'd heard about the offspring of humans and angels being larger than normal humans. Reinventing them as mythical giants that were 40 feet tall, is beyond ridiculous. There was some historical references to housing and furniture in parts of the world, that were much larger than would be needed for standard humans. These were supposedly built on a scale that would lend itself to a 10 to 14 foot human, somewhat supporting the \"David and Goliath\" tale from the bible. There is no mention in any historical references to buildings or artifacts that would support the idea of a 40 foot tall being. If I was rating this movie on my own scale, it would have been a negative value instead of a one... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fe5ae29bd0b24e2db40975cf3b9f6270", "input": "Review: We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-966853f50cd641c5bb1fc7877cd69b31", "input": "Review: Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6a61bdad67749b39f92541b1711f83d", "input": "Review: I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc\". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.And yes... \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR\" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette\" and the downright tacky \"Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape\", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a6f2ac456af40e7b866ae2f55f19259", "input": "Review: Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.) 'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b6c9bda17c8e4abfaf21b3a4480ed24e", "input": "Review: A well-made and imaginative production, refreshingly free from cliché, this somewhat picaresque affair recounts a tale of a close friendship that develops between a man and a boy under less than ideal conditions: the man an escaped convict who has kidnapped the youth for his value as a hostage. Expertly directed by Alan Gibson with a fine sense for balanced narrative movement, the film provides freshness in nearly every scene, as felon Martin Steckert (Richard Harris), believing that his rejection for parole was particularly undeserved, contrives a convoluted but ultimately successful escape plan, following which his spontaneous nature comes to the fore as he flees to the lakeside residence of his childhood. Often bursting into song or dancing a few steps, the capricious Steckert gradually gains the trust and affection of his captive and, as police close in for an inevitable showdown, the tethered pair are seen to be a great deal alike in their responses to forms of rejection, as discerned by a psychiatrist (Lindsay Wagner) assigned to aid a zealous police lieutenant (James Coburn) who is in charge of the manhunt for Steckert and his \"prisoner\". This is an engrossing story, worth telling, a quickly-paced and novel adventure that profits from a capital performance by Harris, fine turns from Wagner, Coburn, and Karen Black, along with Justin Henry as the snatched lad, with an appropriately whimsical score contributed by Wilfred Josephs, and top-notch cinematography by Frank Watts, with all footage shot in a beautiful autumnal Ontario province. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bed37cd915f0429fbc0d862c80df1f1c", "input": "Review: I thought this was a splendid showcase for Mandy's bodacious bod. If you don't expect anything else, such as clever plot twists and believable character development, you won't be disappointed. Consider this a Sports Illustrated shoot whose character goes around killing people, especially those who threaten to come between her and her 'Mommy' (Suzanna Arquette, who obviously doesn't want to play the sex kitten - she leaves that up to her daughter).Mandy's face is a little too perfect, but her body is a complete 5-alarm fire, up there in the ranks of Sophia Loren when it comes to natural bustiness, a perfect 7-to-10 ratio of waist to hips, and splendidly configured legs, right down to her feet. (There has to be some ideal configuration of thighs to knees to calves to ankles that is altogether pleasing to the eye; Mandy certainly is the model for this idealized ratio).And no flat butt to boot, which seems to be the undoing of many a busty babe with curves everywhere except in the 'nether hemispheres'. Mandy might have used a body double in the rear shot of her losing her towel as she descended into the candle-lit hot tub with her blindfolded German-Guy Victim No. 2, but from all I could see from her bikini shots, she had the butt for it and didn't need a double to prove it.Mandy's acting abilities had little to do with her impression of a psychotic 'Mommy's Girl', with the obvious erotic lesbian overtones. Her bisexual nature (allowing herself to be boinked in the hot tub after a long flirtation with German Guy No. 2, who also happened to be her mother's lover) added an additional dimension to an otherwise one-dimensional caricature of adolescent female horniness conflicted with pathological murderous impulses (always by water with the men - the ultimate fate of the Latina housekeeper was edited out in the televised version for some obscure reason).Mandy's Uber-Nordic facial features coupled with her Uber-Voluptuous body could either be a blessing or a curse. If Mandy really wants to further her career as an actress, I'd advise her to immerse herself fully in the Romance Languages, especially Italian and Spanish - and maybe French, although I don't know if they would go for her type. But this would enable her to reconcile her Bo Derek face with her Vida Guerra body - but maybe her face is just a little too Nordic, and she has shown off too much of her extraordinary body in a cheesy movie to enable her to advance to any more fame that was enjoyed by Michelle Johnson of the 1980's whose early fame in Blame it on Rio was followed by a series of skin flicks that failed to make it off the ground.Vambo Drule. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-20eaddb10fbb4d088d52535c01efcca3", "input": "Review: \"Fungicide\" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful \"film\" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the \"film\"-makers will say that, yes, the \"film\" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.Starting the \"movie\" it wasn't as though I was expecting \"Citizen Kane\" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a \"fuse\" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).That summary is as good as the \"film\" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said \"NO.\" And those \"special\" effects. Well, they're \"special\" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The \"film\"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the \"movie.\" \"Fungicide\" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-094253bc9b4c467eab3c2533685f2353", "input": "Review: Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché \"there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back\" with some justification! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a1e425c3e254504a6e41ce7e94c5977", "input": "Review: A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made \"Wrong Turn\" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a \"Master of Horror\" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.The issue of the \"right to die\" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from \"decent\" to \"spectacular\". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of \"Hellraiser\" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of \"Hellraiser 2\". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than \"Hellraiser 2\".Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the \"Washingtonians\" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c758d3f4e2944a5986028664ea89c4d5", "input": "Review: Another vast conspiracy movie that tries to blame the US government and the Armed Forces (especially the Army) for every disaster since the Great Flood. Anyone who has ever served time in the US military can see how bogus this film is. Uniforms, equipment, sets, and mannerisms are all wrong. (And of course, all Senior Officers are either corrupt criminals or total idiots.) Blatant propaganda with no attempt at objectivity. Most of the theories presented have been disproven over the past few years. Uses every cliche', rumor, and Urban Legend from the Gulf-all are presented as gospel. (The truth is, no one knows for sure why some GW vets are sick and others are healthy as horses.) PS This is not new. War is NOT fun and I know WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets with some pretty serious ailments, too. (And the government has the responsibility to take care of all of them.) Sensationalistic movies like this will not solve the problem! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2dd35be30deb47a58bc8203e40599ed5", "input": "Review: This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called \"Cool Ethan\" or \"Cheaters Never Win\" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0504f52824ef4564b3383545ef4cb2ef", "input": "Review: Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4afcae74d56a4bcaa928304cdb4c0167", "input": "Review: I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing.... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b329cf15f65a47a39590be3d7d9980b4", "input": "Review: I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a9799c7a51843d3a2e958d0794e37d0", "input": "Review: When Sabrina first came onto our screens i was about 12, and therefore spent my teenage years watching the teenage witch get into all kinds of weird predicaments.It was always one of my favourite programmes, the witchy feeling of sixties sitcom 'Bewitched' but this time the character was cooler. I always liked Sabrina because she was smart. She was also friendly and easy going which made her enjoyable to watch. The characters at the beginning were great; Harvey, Jenny, Libby, the quizmaster, Salem and Mr. Poole (my personal fave, shame he left so early on) Hilda and Zelda her aunts started off OK, but then became irritating.I liked Mr. Kraft too as he was always that little bit closer to discovering Sabrina's secret. What i loved about the first three series was the original ideas, the discovering of the family secret and learning new spells but as it went on it became more predictable. Too many characters came and left, such as Valerie, Dreama and Brad and then they decided to do Sabrina at college which ruined it for me.Sabrina became self-absorbed at college, there was less magic, no spell book, no aunts living with her and Roxie, Miles and Morgan were annoying.The last series was boring, and i only watched to see what happened in the end. Not having Hilda and Zelda seemed wrong somehow and Miles was gone just like that. The last episode made me feel a lot better though (SPOILER)having Sabrina end up with Harvey on her wedding day to dullard Aaron was great! Overall a great programme if you forget the poor last two or three series which reminded me of so many teen shows. Magical. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c1d6ad3eddb9481f9da518d3f3053385", "input": "Review: This is a great movie for all ages. Its the story about three animals how have to find their way home. There is a bit of a twist at the end and mainly throughout the whole movie. You never know what is going to happen next. This movie makes you cry and makes you laugh. You just don't know what going to happen next. The trek home is all beautiful with all the wonderful wildlife scenes. They producers also spent a lot of money for this movie and it shows too. The animals in this movie were well trained and are great actors/actress themselves. Everything about this movie is great! 10 out of 10 the whole way! Rent or buy it today I can guarantee you will love it the whole family will! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d7c81623ff54b8fa54dedace6fa65af", "input": "Review: I honestly have to say that I could not stop watching this movie from the second that it started. Simply for how bad it was!!! It's kinda like watching paint dry only a lot more confusing. I mean you sit there and just wait for something to happen, anything in fact, preferably something that makes the whole film make sense! At the end of the film I actually sat there wondering if there was any chance at all that I may have missed the first hour that explained everything or whether I may have inadvertently passed out during the film and missed the parts that glued the plot(if there was in fact one)together! The main thing that really confused me about this movie, is nearly at the end the main girl (if there was indeed a main girl) was in some sort of alternate reality, i mean what the hell was going on at this point?! all of a sudden she awoke and was in a mental institute, chained to a bed being drugged by doctors or something, then quicker than it would have taken me to slit my wrists, it flipped back and she was getting eaten out by some random vampire!it made no sodding sense! I'm tempted to email the makers and demand my time back, i mean i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this rubbish!i am kinda interested to know if the filmmakers themselves actually knew what it was all about! just seemed someone had edited out all the bits that could have made it make sense though i think the film would have had to have been 4hrs long to make that happen! I side completely with the other person who wrote the other review, i was duped royally with this film by its title, and that alone. I'm just so sodding grateful i didn't actually buy the film, no matter how many times iv seen it in the local pound shop. You would have thought that would have given me a clue that the film was a complete pile of steaming movie rubbish but to be honest I think £1 was way too much money to spend on this film!!!! what a sodding huge waste of time and a good razor blade, i mean i wish i OD'ed, its less painful than watching this film!!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-27cf6127befb42acaba9f9ce06521669", "input": "Review: This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3fd05554348042e9a5eb469816b544fe", "input": "Review: Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given \"three\" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7248620b73a4d46ad67c4375cf3f555", "input": "Review: I was never a big fan of television until I watched 24 for the first time. I got into the series very late. Season 5 ended before I even saw my very first episode. It was an episode of Series 3 that was on my parents DVR (digital video recorder) box while I was house sitting for the weekend. It took that one episode for me to be hook line and sinker into the world of Jack Bauer. And boy was I hooked!! I watched the next six episodes without blinking an eye. The next day I went to Blockbuster and signed up for an unlimited month pass for twenty something dollars and needless to say it has been the greatest blockbuster money I've ever spent. I watched the first three seasons in three weeks. That's 72 forty minute episodes!!! I will say that finding out what happens next is easier on DVD than waiting an entire week. I can only imagine the anticipation of watching Season 6 week to week!! I find it mildly torturous and cruel but I'm going to give it a try and watch it just like the rest of America!! The DVR is set and you can bet I'll be chomping at the bit!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcfd4cb266464ff4a59145cdacfef858", "input": "Review: Or released on DVD or screened on a cable channel like Amer. Life TV network. I have been watching another favorite, \"Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea\", as well as \"Lost in Space\" and Land of Giants\". They've been showing them forever but aren't receptive to suggestions for other shows. My father and I were big fans as I was already a big science/electronics nut, (still am) and my father was an old school chum of Nader. They both attended Oxy together. I still have memories of several of the episodes even though I was only 9. More so than any show that old. I think it was televised on Sat. after \"Bonanza\". Some of the episodes I recall are the one where he takes the experimental drug that slows down action. Or the one where he body surfs the big ones, (I did that too!) Or the one where there was a mine cave in and he conveys how to use mind control to have the trapped people slow their breathing by entering a trance-like state. That is the one show that I wish I could see again. I got my wish with the original \"Outer Limits\" and \"Sci-Fi Theater...John Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-de3ec8c280284993aff54685f62f95dc", "input": "Review: After just 15 minutes into this film, I began to miss Zhang Yimou's earlier, more weighty films that looked at the politics and society of China from unique perspectives. His turn to martial arts films was a serious misstep in my humble opinion. Hero was his worst film since Operation Cougar, with a needlessly complex story and acting more wooden than that found in a John Agar film. Shi Mian Mai Fu is no different. As an American who has been studying Chinese films for a few years now (and understands and can speak some Mandarin), I'm sure my opinion is different from many others as I'm coming from a different background. SMMF, like Hero, is not really a traditional a kung fu film, and it's certainly not a wuxia pian film. There are no sword & sorcery or chivalry elements here. This is a completely different vehicle than infinitely more watchable films such as A Chinese Ghost Story (all 3), The Butterfly Murders, Green Snake, et al. While those all featured charismatic leads who looked like they were actually enjoying what they do, SMMF features bland, and sometimes laughable, dialogue combined with cardboard acting. Zhang Ziyi plays a blind person about as well as Ben Affleck. There's an air of superiority with this film that's really quite insulting. It takes itself so seriously, it just becomes a huge joke by the end. All the actors look as though this is the most important piece of celluloid in history, they destroy any chance of actually conveying emotions, and the complete humorlessness of it really makes you wonder if Zhang Yimou was making a film per se, or simply a showcase (i.e. an \"ego booster\") for Zhang Ziyi. The camera is literally making out with her face and she gets sexually assaulted not once but twice in the film. Her acting range really hasn't extended past her ability to play a naive \"w\"itch. She's so concentrated on her acting, she comes across as cold and lifeless, as though she's reading her lines from a notecard. It's so funny to hear American critics and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece. I guess if they see a bunch of Asian actors on screen looking really important while flying through a bamboo forest, they're tricked into thinking it's brilliant film-making. Ching Siu Tung's choreography, while still retaining his trademark style, editing, and postures, lacks the vitality and originality of his earlier films like A Chinese Ghost Story, Dragon Inn, and Duel to the Death. Sadly to say, the wirework in this film is really subpar, and if there's subpar/obvious wirework, then you probably shouldn't have filmed it at high speed. The same goes for the special effects which have a distinct B-movie feel to them. Beans, daggers, bowls, arrows, swords, and other random objects fly through the air (after being thrown) with no regard for logic, turning, climbing, and banking as though there's a little pilot inside. I know that logic doesn't really hold a place in stylized Chinese martial arts films, but if you don't want to induce a mass amount of giggling from your audience, then you should probably work on your compositing a bit more. Mass melodrama, unintentionally funny dramatic moments, boring fight scenes, really uninspired plot twists are what await you with Shi Mian Mai Fu. It's obvious that Zhang Yimou is no longer making movies for Chinese audiences. This is meant to crack into the Western market just as CTHD did. After watching Hero and SMMF, I've come to the conclusion that if Zhang Yimou wants to make Hollywood films, he's definitely off to the right start. SMMF is basically The Phantom Menace of Chinese martial arts films. And I thought Hero was bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb425e05c24e49528784794358897a1f", "input": "Review: Unlike many other films, which are disturbing either by dint of their naked unpleasantness (Man Bites Dog) or their sheer violence (most Peckinpah films), Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real. The movie's plausibility is greatly aided by the playing of the leads, particularly Ned Beatty and Jon Voight as the victim and reluctant hero respectively. Burt Reynolds, too, has never been better. The film's cultural influence is demonstrable by the number of people who will understand a reference to 'banjo territory' - perhaps only Get Carter has done such an effective hatchet-job on a region's tourist industry. I can think of only a handful of movies which put me into such a serious depression after they had finished - the oppressive atmosphere of Se7en is the best comparison I can think of. Although so much of it is excellent of itself, Deliverance is a classic above all because there are no adequate points of comparison with it - it is unique. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a698b4487c84fd5ad77af5f43a8f896", "input": "Review: This video rocked! Eddie is one of the funniest comics I have ever seen. Not only does he have class, he makes some of the funniest observations on history and culture that I have ever seen. Eddie is the most original and most intelligent comic I've seen in a VERY long time. Tell all those other stand-ups to get off the stage and let this \"executive\" reign! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-67f8053a3ee7488e97f5bdaf61e6d698", "input": "Review: UK newspaper reviews seem to have concentrated on the fact that the reviewers tend to know Toby Young, the journalist on whose real-life experiences this movie is based. The key word here is \"based\". How To Lose Friends is a fictitious romcom.Sidney Young joins a prestigious gossip magazine in New York, where he proceeds to make gaffe after gaffe before finally Getting It Right and Making It. This involves him selling out, and the movie has some serious points to make about journalistic integrity. However, they are not overdone: the main substance remains a comedy which centres around Sidney's misadventures. The script has its cake and eats it in that Sidney is a stupid, well-meaning buffoon at the same time as being a smart, moderately obnoxious skilled writer. This contradiction is never that much of an issue, because Simon Pegg (as Sidney) projects likability too well.Jeff Bridges underplays Sidney's editor a little too effectively, and Kirsten Dunst is rather anonymous as the conflicted eventual object of Sidney's affections And, with regard to Megan Fox (who plays an airhead bimbo starlet), I can say only this: just say the word, Miss Fox, and I will leave my wife, sell all my belongings, and buy myself a plane ticket in order to take my place at your side as your consort. Of course, given that I'm a fat 56-year-old English accountant, you might not find my offer too enticing, but it's there on the table anyway. Given how short her career has been so far, one might think it is a little too soon for Megan Fox to take on a role which mercilessly lampoons the sort of actress she might be thought to become: however, she does it sweetly, with some skill, and extremely sexily. This girl will go far.There is stalwart support from a variety of seasoned performers - Miriam Margolyes and Bill Paterson from the UK, Gillian Anderson and Danny Huston from the US.There are several laugh-out-loud moments, and I smiled most of the way through. As ever, the F-word makes appearances when it really doesn't need to, although at least a couple of these are very funny. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79437d864c434ef2ab051487543e7910", "input": "Review: Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...etc etc etc....Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-db0763e32531451fae4693df0330d099", "input": "Review: I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a32852812df24510898238159683b049", "input": "Review: I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43af43a2983046be9ae195f410868c2d", "input": "Review: The plot, character development, and gags in this movie are all extremely weak. Quite a waste of time. The conclusion of Saving Grace is supposed to make one feel warm and fuzzy as though the characters have grown through their struggles. There was no such development to make such warm fuzzy feelings possible. The drug gags are cliched and much of the movie doesn't ring true to life. The plot builds what is supposed to be tension but the characters aren't developed enough to care. Then it rushes through a resolution of all the outstanding problems in about a minute of screen time leaving the viewer feeling like they have just wasted their time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fc4222b0748843b0bfebe7b4f98e476e", "input": "Review: *review may contain spoilers*predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e959aee289b4f648fa85627df5f5ace", "input": "Review: Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-94009b246e0a41bda4ded5d214be496a", "input": "Review: 9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry \"Dr. Giggles\" Drake) comes her way.If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6df77df868ab4665a297e646e1a1aaa0", "input": "Review: Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0074628858b643bd918fe0b930b745af", "input": "Review: This picks up about a year after the events in \"Basic Instinct\". Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is now in London. While having sex with a soccer player while speeding about in a car going at 110 miles/hour (don't ask) she goes off the road and ends up in the Thames. She survives--he doesn't. The police hire psychiatrist Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to see if she's mentally competent to stand trial. Naturally she starts playing with his mind instead and plenty of murders and sex follow.This movie was doomed before it even opened. It took forever to get a cast and director, script problems were constant and the cast was not happy (Morrissey complained about the movie often). Still it's not too bad. It's a lot like the first--there's a lush music score, beautiful locations, plenty of sex and nudity (this had to be edited for an R), a nicely convoluted plot and good acting--but there's no impact. It feels like a retread of the first. People are being killed here with a choker leash (I believe)...just like people were being killed by an ice pick in the first. In one cute moment Stone picks up an ice pick and looks at it longingly. She's also playing mind games with a man and might be getting him implicated in murders. The similarities are too apparent.This is also VERY R rated--there's plenty of explicit sex talk, male nudity (Morrissey looks a lot better nude than Michael Douglas), female nudity (Stone still looks great) and some bloody murders. The acting is good across the board. Stone is just fantastic here; Morrissey looks miserable but is OK; Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are good in supporting roles.So--this isn't at all bad but feels like a remake of the first. Still I recommend it. People just attacked this because Stone is not well liked and they thought it was stupid to do a sequel to \"Basic...\" 14 years after it was made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee261be73dce4e5bb313b43f005ea3d6", "input": "Review: I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0688c1b6acec4bda8896bc54601aed12", "input": "Review: These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the \"shocking\" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f9453ca93f043b5ba77204facf1043d", "input": "Review: Wow...sheer brilliance.Turning a thriller/suspense/horror into comedy.After watching this, I never laughed so hard at a horror movie before...a ridiculous plot with 3 characters that were just insanely developed - either not written in depth or too much depth.If you want to watch an absolutely written horror movie with stupid dialog, messed up plot, useless scenes, wasted characters, bad sound and lousy development overall, then this is the one to watch.Be sure to keep focused for the classic \"food processor\" scene and the totally inept police investigation scenes.This is a remarkable new low in screen performance and writing and to sit through it for the entire duration makes you either stupid, daring or brave. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4549f39ef5d4438a5b146e21f30dc91", "input": "Review: First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out \"Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!\" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba2d5dfbe6a641218c524ec2ccfef8c5", "input": "Review: \"La Furia del Hombre Lobo\" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of \"Werewolf Shadow\", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- \"It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all.\") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as \"Waldeman\"). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, \"La Marca del Hombre-lobo\" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77c6059281444a788a6259970d8bae69", "input": "Review: Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb1d8fbd2a404cfd89d2c914668b7d32", "input": "Review: Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating \"collectors action figurine\"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were \"actual\" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c88a3b4a0f6e4c18b8c1a8a9b9ecba9c", "input": "Review: French horror cinema has seen something of a revival over the last couple of years with great films such as Inside and Switchblade Romance bursting on to the scene. Maléfique preceded the revival just slightly, but stands head and shoulders over most modern horror titles and is surely one of the best French horror films ever made! Maléfique was obviously shot on a low budget, but this is made up for in far more ways than one by the originality of the film, and this in turn is complimented by the excellent writing and acting that ensure the film is a winner. The plot focuses on two main ideas; prison and black magic. The central character is a man named Carrère, sent to prison for fraud. He is put in a cell with three others; the quietly insane Lassalle, body building transvestite Marcus and his retarded boyfriend Daisy. After a short while in the cell together, they stumble upon a hiding place in the wall that contains an old journal. After translating part of it, they soon realise its magical powers and realise they may be able to use it to break through the prison walls.Black Magic is a very interesting topic, and I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't more films based on it as there's so much scope for things to do with it. It's fair to say that Maléfique makes the best of it's assets as despite it's restraints, the film never actually feels restrained and manages to flow well throughout. Director Eric Valette provides a great atmosphere for the film; the fact that most of it takes place inside the central prison cell ensures that the film feels very claustrophobic, and this immensely benefits the central idea of the prisoners wanting to use magic to break out of the cell - it's very easy to get behind them! It's often said that the unknown is the thing that really frightens people, and this film proves that as the director ensures that we can never really be sure of exactly what is round the corner, and this helps to ensure that Maléfique actually does manage to be quite frightening! The film is memorable for a lot of reasons outside the central plot; the characters are all very interesting in their own way and the fact that the book itself almost takes on its own character is very well done. Anyone worried that the film won't deliver by the end won't be disappointed either as the ending both makes sense and manages to be quite horrifying! Overall, Maléfique is a truly great horror film and one of the best of the decade - HIGHLY recommended viewing! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c712b990b2524f4c961fd3417dc7eae0", "input": "Review: I did not expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the \"making of\" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never laugh! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e118cd2c4b5450d84786fc4be557322", "input": "Review: I simply give this a three because it fulfilled what my buddies and I hoped it would do: entertain. I wasn't stupid enough to rent this thinking it would be a zombie film up there with the likes of Romero or Fulci, but what I rented it for was a laugh. If you are looking for a film for amusement, or a film to make you shake your head in embarrassment, go for it. This is perfect for junior- \"Mystery Science Theater\" fans, but the only downside is that it is so bad, it makes fun of itself. I, personally, think it is a shame to relate this to any other Hollywood title that we may know, because when a film sucks like this, it has its own genre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9b8a34136174e7dbf54aa085150d431", "input": "Review: \"Nat\" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend \"IQ\" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry \"Scooter\" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-530356f9eff4473497690ec48b19fd62", "input": "Review: A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he \"accidentally\" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy – what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-10525b36b5c14faf84e0c463cf1cc1a7", "input": "Review: I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c129507353d245688d6af4f3151e43a4", "input": "Review: This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4434067becb849d5af5096c45c2f0f28", "input": "Review: **Attention Spoilers**First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to \"Braveheart\". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that \"Braveheart\" is a better film than \"Rob Roy\". I like \"Braveheart\" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to \"Rob Roy\" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love \"Braveheart\", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love \"Rob Roy\". Here are my particular reasons...-\"Rob Roy\" is about real people.Let's face it, the William Wallace in \"Braveheart\" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why \"The Last Temptation of Christ\" is a better film than \"King of Kings\", and that is also one of the reasons why I think \"Rob Roy\" is better than \"Braveheart\". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in \"Braveheart\". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.Throughout \"Rob Roy\", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.The villains in \"Rob Roy\" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in \"Braveheart\" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in \"Braveheart\", but from Brutus in \"Julius Ceasar\" to Fredo in \"The Godfather Part II\", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism.\"Rob Roy\" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. \"See to it that I am not mocked\" are his favorite words to his \"factor\". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in \"Rob Roy\", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. \"Rob Roy\" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.- The final duel in \"Rob Roy\" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in \"Braveheart\".One thing I get tired of is people telling me that \"Braveheart\" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From \"Spartacus\" to \"Gladiator\", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. \"Braveheart\" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell \"FREEDOM!\". But hey, maybe that's just me.- \"Rob Roy\" is more realistic than \"Braveheart\"I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in \"Rob Roy\", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by \"Rob Roy\" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. \"Rob Roy\" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.By contrast, the dialogue in \"Braveheart\" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before \"Rob Roy\", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of \"Aye\"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.So, do these descriptions prove that \"Rob Roy\" is a better film than \"Braveheart\"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that \"Braveheart\" is a better film than \"Rob Roy\". To put simply, \"Rob Roy\" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. \"Braveheart\" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...Grade - A Score - 9 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0cbc451c9ff240089ca97ce054870e32", "input": "Review: Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7d49b2a19b78483588917dbb43d389f2", "input": "Review: If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.Wu Du it!9 out of 10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c848790a0bf48e482afb778e6603361", "input": "Review: 'The Rookie' was a wonderful movie about the second chances life holds for us and also puts an emotional thought over the audience, making them realize that your dreams can come true. If you loved 'Remember the Titans', 'The Rookie' is the movie for you!! It's the feel good movie of the year and it is the perfect movie for all ages. 'The Rookie' hits a major home run! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae6a895a4b3442c9849004b2c9347436", "input": "Review: Adorable! I saw Domestic Import in Philly in October with my kids. We all liked it so much that we saw it a second time with my parents. I haven't heard them laugh like that in years! It was the first time that I can remember seeing a movie that my parents and my kids could enjoy. It's really cute and we can't wait for it to come out on DVD. They need to make more movies like Domestic Import. It is refreshing to go to a movie that three different generations can enjoy (and not be embarrassed). I have not seen a movie this cute since My Big Fat Greek Wedding. I loved Mindy Sterling as the mother. She was also in Austin Powers. Howard Hesseman is in this too and he is hilarious. I remember him from WKRP. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fa3ccea95c154fc6b1c962dcf5497b53", "input": "Review: A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-64afb7a7d493443aa37900c567a856b0", "input": "Review: This is the most confronting documentary I have ever seen. It was a simple and breathtaking view of a beautiful idea. Based on photographs of the hidden industrial landscapes centred around the modern industrial growth of China, Edward Burtynsky brings to life confronting issues that we so easily chose to ignore.Taking no political sides, this movie is a neutral moving picture of realities that our western societies chooses not to educate us about - the by-products of economical growth, the externalities paid by citizens of the lesser-developed communities, the source of our comforts and the wastes of our consumer lifestyles.Amazing, heart-breaking, impossible to ignore. This is a challenging journey but one worth taking - please stop staying ignorant and at least see these photographs of truth without feeling any pressure to take a standing to these issues. 10/10 definitely! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a679afaec5d4a1aa0de850707a88529", "input": "Review: What a delightful romp – a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable – better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks – as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is – such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry – who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7691555b5ad740c0be7465a75f665f03", "input": "Review: WAR, INC. (2008) **1/2 John Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd, Sergej Trifunovic, Lyubomir Neikov, Ned Bellamy, (Voice of: Montel Williams)A hit-and-miss-21st Century \"STRANGELOVE\"John Cusack – who co-wrote the script with Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser – stars as a jaded hit-man named Brand Hauser who is burnt out but decides to follow thru on one final assignment by icing a Middle-Eastern oil minister named Omar Sharif (yes, not THAT Omar Sharif but you get the tone here from this misfire for a laugh) commandeered by the ex-Vice President of The USA (Aykroyd, Cusack's old \"Grosse Pointe Blank\" co-hort, doing a mean Dick Cheney manqué turn here), enlisting Brand to do the deed under the guise of a Trade Show Producer in mythical Turaqistan (read: Iraq/Afghanistan) for the American private corporation Tamerlane (read: Halliburton). While being briefed Brand is faced with a moment of clarity when he comes across intrepid journalist Natalie Hegalhuzen (Tomei) and eventually falls in love with her. Meanwhile Tamerlane is sponsoring the unlikely union of Eastern European teen sensation Yonica Babyyeah (a surprisingly decent Duff aping her own celebrity with tongue- through-cheek) and the idiot son of the country's leader.What follows is a bold attempt for a 21st Century black comedy a la \"DR. STRANGELOVE\" but for all intense and purposes there are sadly more misses than hits in this broad try for laughs amidst political message (an unjust war being outsourced by American capitalism, check!) While Cusack riffs on his Martin Blank from the aforementioned \"Pointe\" he does add some nice touches of his man in black (he does shots of Tabasco sauce to take the edge off), the rest of the cast plays catch up (except sister Joan who is a riot as the high-strung aide- de-camp for Hauser and has one of the film's funniest laugh-out lines: \"My mass communications skills are finally paying off\") for the most part. Cusack visited the Iraq War earlier this year in the 180 degree different \"Grace Is Gone\" and here he allows his political views wear on his sleeve ; while admirable overall the film's pace and rhythms are off largely no-thanks to first time filmmaker Joshua Seftel making his directorial debut here (and it is noticeable) except for maybe the well-choreographed fight Hauser is involved with Babyyeah's idiotic fiancé's entourage.A nice attempt yet a misguided failure ; maybe next time Cusack won't try so hard and let the idiocy of war speak for itself instead of doing the heavy lifting by himself. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ea93a28ab3d4e028fb8ed499a9b3b9c", "input": "Review: ....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read \"The Dark Knight Returns\" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.**out of****stars Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4be16185b31c4f9196bec9763b7ae92e", "input": "Review: I first saw this back in the early 90s on UK TV, i did like it then but i missed the chance to tape it, many years passed but the film always stuck with me and i lost hope of seeing it TV again, the main thing that stuck with me was the end, the hole castle part really touched me, its easy to watch, has a great story, great music, the list goes on and on, its OK me saying how good it is but everyone will take there own best bits away with them once they have seen it, yes the animation is top notch and beautiful to watch, it does show its age in a very few parts but that has now become part of it beauty, i am so glad it has came out on DVD as it is one of my top 10 films of all time. Buy it or rent it just see it, best viewing is at night alone with drink and food in reach so you don't have to stop the film.Enjoy Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b938beed03324f2594d3b1cf64be8ae5", "input": "Review: The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's \"talents\" other than drumming.Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-247c93d718d84034987f22e05f50e33b", "input": "Review: Warning: Does contain spoilers.Open Your EyesIf you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds. I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable. He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.\"What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?\"What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.Open your Eyes.Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them. Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth. Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is \" the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter.\" He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called \"Best Pictures of the year\" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it. This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed. And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.Open Your Eyes Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea9538f0bb2248fba818ea6d994b09e8", "input": "Review: What the hell is this? \"Kooky drama\"? \"Lawyers in Loony Tunes Land\"? The world's thinnest, most duck-faced actress (even more duck-faced and anorexic than Michelle Pfeiffer) overacts her bony butt off, making cretinous grimaces that would shame Bugs Bunny, in one of the most animated non-animated TV series ever. This is also the most annoying one-hour-format TV show ever, hence the worst.All the men act like pansies, and I for one refuse to believe that even hip big-city shysters are all as delta-male-like as this sorry (short) bunch. Wuss Peter MacNicol manages to be even more irritating than Calista Flockofducks with his fake Hollywood \"shshshs\" speech impediment: it's the sort of pseudo-inability to pronounce the letter \"S\" by turning it into a moronic \"SH\" that the likes of Jon Shtewart and Christian Shlater also practice with zeal. Watching MacNicol talk, I always wonder how come his jaw doesn't dislocate... Human facial anatomy was never meant to support the pronouncing of the \"SH\" sound more than three times per second. He is a medical wonder.This badly conceived and written legal-drama/comedy hodgepodge also features some very 90s PC. It has POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written with huge, neon letters. Is there anything more unrealistic than a bunch of LAWYERS being full of ideals, high principles, and moral fiber? Laughable, but that's the way defense lawyers have been portrayed in Hollywood since its inception. After all, what is more noble than defending a murderer, a rapist, or a thief? When a TV series as retarded as \"Ally McBeak\" starts preaching to America about how it should run the country, then it must be time for Paris Hilton to become President. \"Ally McQuack\" is both a product of recent and large-scale Western dumbing-down and a perpetrator of it.Those supposed touches of \"eccentricity\", like the UNBELIEVABLY annoying musical numbers, are unconvincing and embarrassingly unfunny. This is no Monty Python. Whatever \"new\" the talent-free makers of this garbage were aiming for, they failed with honours. \"Ally McBeak\" is a highly commercialized TV venture aimed at indiscriminating yuppies, bored housewives, and bipolar lawyers. It's yet another dull \"objection overruled sustained your Honour may I call the witness\" legalistic baloney that the American audiences seem to eat up with relish for some strange reason... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-07759d6f63bf4c73b8c792134a5b0150", "input": "Review: An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make \"L.A. Confidential\"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc2416e896a64e1ebe00109124d6becf", "input": "Review: AKA: Mondays In The SunI have no idea what I just watched. Three men wander aimlessly and drink, grousing about everything and at everyone in their path. This is supposed to be a drama, but what it is, is a total waste of film, without a single redeeming quality.I have read reviews touting the performances herein as \"wonderful,\" \"beautiful,\" and \"heroic.\" I'm afraid I cannot agree, unless these men were supposed to come off as the dumbest most ignorant proto-humans who ever walked.All in all? This was not a movie. It wanders throughout and loses everyone but the audience. I've watched this three times, and cannot for the life of me see what anyone sees in this garbage. There is nothing profound here, whatsoever. It's crap.It rates a ZERO/10 from...the Fiend :. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-866fa754502e4451bbe1edc8ca004bb5", "input": "Review: Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some \"brain grain cereal\" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans…My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem… Enjoy! :-) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bbaa66a8a42145b2a7bf0f4519da38db", "input": "Review: Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made \"Rock n Roll\" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got \"mad as the wrestler\" would say either \"Were out of time\" or \"Well be right back\" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who \"Georgeous\" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big \"Hes a big-on!\" punched or kicked in the guts \"right in the gussets\"or when kicked \"He punted him\" or \"the \"piledriver should be banned\" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say\"Right across the front-e-lobe\" or when a wrestler is in trouble \"Hes in a bad bad way\". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-916b9b65d55f4c2faed352b585aa2e12", "input": "Review: Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.* out of 4(Bad) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7b31f36be6a497689f0208bae119b2c", "input": "Review: i expected something different:more passion,drama...Again another failed attempt of originality.i'm sorry to say that the film falls into the old cliché of 'cheesiness'.15 year old teens may appreciate it though.The acting was not very convincing and the lines common,lacking any wit.Still, the soundtrack was good and well adapted.I can't say that this movie is a total flop,because people do watch it but it didn't meet the public's expectations and sunk into mediocrity.So,to conclude,the production keeps you in front of the TV for almost an hour and a half,which is an appreciable thing.Thus,I guess its worth seeing if you don't get annoyed Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5dfb5891338494597f9180a9abe02c7", "input": "Review: I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing \"I want to be a sailor\" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c65c85ad7eb449deb86a1d3fb6939e36", "input": "Review: There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd159a0ec41c4ce990fac2e3c814d7b8", "input": "Review: Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b62c386e3ed74d5a911a634462aa46db", "input": "Review: Three scumbags get their just deserts after wasting their lives in greed, drugs, ego, and bad attitudes. Interesting and well done; this style of film always makes me wonder where reality leaves off and imagination takes over. Even though these folks were the scum of the earth I still found myself pitying them. They never really stood much of a chance. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf023ec5d4df457f8b7421616de72f30", "input": "Review: In Iran, women are officially banned from men's sporting events. In June 2005, the Iran's national soccer team has an important game against Bahrain in the Azadi Stadium for the qualification of the World Cup. A group of Iranian girls and lovers of soccer dresses like boys and unsuccessfully attempts to enter in the stadium being arrested.Soccer (and Flamengo's team), beach and movies are my greatest passions; therefore I loved this little gem about a group of girls and their passion for soccer. The director Jafar Panahi, from \"The White Balloon\", \"The Mirror\" and \"The Circle\", shot this movie on the day that Iran defeated Bahrain and qualified to the World Cup in Germany. The dramatic and funny adventure of these Iranian girls is one of the most delightful movies I have ever seen. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): Not Available Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d49ffbc76d2144b5853d751ec3b89441", "input": "Review: Verry classic plot but a verry fun horror movie for home movie party Really gore in the second part This movie proves that you can make something fun with a small budget. I hope that the director will make another one Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea2d2ad61c784f87b0403e69eebf1021", "input": "Review: This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-450a15cc292c455f86edf08c89e56cbb", "input": "Review: The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2131603edcae4aa3b2d1d9ba467fdf42", "input": "Review: This stirring western spins the tale of the famous rifle of the early west that was coveted by one and all. James Stewart is the cowboy who wins the prized Winchester in a shootout, only to lose it in a robbery. The story details Stewart's pursuit of the rifle and a certain man through the film. The rifle changes hands time after time, as though the owner is fated to lose it through violence. The picture has plenty of action and suspense as Stewart closes in on his quarry. A great cast supports Stewart here, namely Stephen McNally, Dan Duryea, Millard Mitchell, John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen. Shelley Winters seems miscast here and the purpose of her role is rather obscure. Tony Curtis and Rock Hudson, teen heartthrobs in later years, have brief but good roles. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-534781d9f884495caed7af3b95b3858b", "input": "Review: I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of \"Rivers and Tides.\" However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed \"ethical\" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this \"artist,\" scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-301931269ae248d5aa031261940356fc", "input": "Review: (Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. Here's our story... Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says \"Come work for me!\" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying \"Yes\" is a no-brainer.Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.The \"comedy\" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is \"wounded.\" The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c271e1f5d36046a1a9d601dcdbdf5a15", "input": "Review: 1.) This movie was amazing! I watched it while I was in the town next to the one where he grew up! I went and saw the buildings that the story took place in. Overall, I loved this movie, One of Jake Gyllenhaal's best!! Also- my favorite parts were the science fair, and all the times with his father. They were so sad, it seemed. Homer wanted to follow his dream and his dad didn't seem to care one way or another. That tag line is true. \"Sometimes One Dream is bright enough to light up the sky.\" 2.) The way this movie was shot was impeccable, it was all so believable that it could have been recorded during the 1950's. Dress was accurate and they had their slang down too. Definitely recommend this movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60eaf13ff6804f7c80832b6781854bdb", "input": "Review: to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with \"Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf\". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5af05339d4f45679e1ff63668496344", "input": "Review: Elisha Cuthbert plays Sue a fourteen year old girl who has lost her mother and finds it hard to communicate with her father, until one day in the basement of her apartment she finds a secret magic elevator which takes her to back to the late 18th century were she meets two other children who have lost their father and face poverty...I was clicking through the channels and found this..I read the synopsis and suddenly saw Elisha Cuthbert...I thought okay....and watched the movie.. i didn't realise Elisha had done films before....'The Girl Next Door and 24' Elisha provides a satisfactory performance, the plot is a little cheesy but the film works...Its amazing how this young girl went on to become the Hottest babe in Hollywood! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71e3ed3a57aa4fb58a9d0dcc695e34c4", "input": "Review: Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15f5dc37edac421d92eadd83a932d678", "input": "Review: Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the \"great\" Robert Florey can't aid this one.*1/2 (of four) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76c2efe8197343e4a0dc2ce2588660c9", "input": "Review: Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a3a8dfe107244f69106fd388f68020b", "input": "Review: Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7194c945d334e2ca2601d607d494acd", "input": "Review: WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5998307e6d494dffbb712a658c905db1", "input": "Review: It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3a93f89afcb841fead1927f0aa42d66e", "input": "Review: Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c0e2971d76f4b60b28d8c067426fc3b", "input": "Review: this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2bb086288044bd7acddd0a99654b0c2", "input": "Review: \"I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!\" The small town sheriff laments.\"This happens a lot in Chicago?\" His deputy asks.Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of \"Big Bean, IL\". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0eb7ceb3d017499c8092b389e78cd07c", "input": "Review: When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch \"Haunted Boat\" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.Title (Brazil): \"Viagem Para a Morte\" (\"Trip to the Death\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-54c0f73f4caf4ffc846a6cd913edd84b", "input": "Review: That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot. What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong. I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-497b74ea1dc74b38bcb8c4de0cbf29a9", "input": "Review: I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. - A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. - A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. - I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. - The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. - Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. - How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.Many of the \"surprises\" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-748393ab2fa5471c912b20145c67836c", "input": "Review: We saw this at one of the local art movie theaters in the Montrose area of Houston, TX. It was a total surprise compared to the write-up in the theater's newsletter but we were both blown away by the artistry. It was beautifully done and (apparently) photographed in a schloss (German name for château) somewhere in the Munich area. It is a very explicit exploration of the sexual relationships of a group of twentyish men and women isolated from the day-to-day constraints. It is fantastic on more levels than I can remember. We came home after the movie and talked and talked until about 4 am the next morning.The version we saw was in English (mostly) so there must be at least two versions since the first reviewer saw the movie in (probably its original) German version. I searched and searched for a video tape version but never came up with anything. Would absolutely love to have a VHS or DVD version of this. It explores relationships at a fundamental level and is also a great tutorial on how to relate to your partner. If anyone knows the writer/director, please convince him to release again, preferably on DVD these days. I cannot even imagine getting tired of watching the candid performance of the actors who are now probably all in their forties. Please, please bring it back. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc17e6f5d6274326aae03558c7731cb6", "input": "Review: Very funny to watch \"Beretta's Island\" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-819940fddb2a4a47a0f117d0d7ca0c59", "input": "Review: this is a visual adaptation of manga with very little dialogue. what dialogue there is appears in word baloons as it would in the manga. the plot of this is existent but only vaguely accounted for. there is an issue of the manga on which this is based available in english in the blast books collection, 'comics underground japan', and it has actual captioned dialogue that explains the plot a bit more than here. i recommend checking that volume out if you liked this, as it explains some of the \"plot\" of the movie, which is otherwise inexplicable. animation wise this is pretty decent, good unintrusive use of computers and the images are for the most part realized well. it jumps in and out of episodes, as the characters, a cat and his brain-dead older sister cat wander in and out of a series of odd images: a boat, a circus, a desert. for a mere half hour they go through a number of semi-plots and settings, which leads me to believe that the director chose a number of issues of the long-running manga to adapt at random, but primarilly selected visually. knowing what's going on might somewhat increase appreciation. this reminds me mostly of the kind of stuff they used to play on the mtv show, cartoon sushi, in particular a short that features a cat chasing a man's severed butt-cheek around the house. only in this case the cats resemble hello kitty more and their adventure is expanded to include death and reincarnation and a number of other themes [though not all that easy to tell what's going on]. the dvd of this has director's commentary and a \"making of\" features, but i cant comment on those because i didnt get around to them. i'm giving this a 8/10 for now, here isnt much to compare it to in anime, and i hope for more like this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eaee1feab9234a62aacb0b24fbd2f1fc", "input": "Review: THE MAN IN THE MOON is a warm and moving coming of age drama centering around a farming family in the 1950's. The main story follows a 14-year old girl (Reese Witherspoon) who develops a crush on a 17-year old neighbor (Jason London) who ends up falling for her older sister (Emily Warfield) and how an unexpected tragedy alters this family's dynamics forever. The 1950's are lovingly evoked here and the screenplay gives you characters you come to care about almost immediately. Witherspoon already begins to show the Oscar-winning talent she would develop in this early role and London makes a charming leading man. Warfield lends a quiet maturity to the role of the older sister that is effective as well. Kudos to Sam Waterston and Tess Harper who play the girls' parents and Gail Strickland, who plays London's mom. I was unexpectedly moved by this quiet and affecting drama that stirs up strong emotions and gives deeper meaning to the phrase \"family ties.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-324733441e224ffca9bec95656bbded9", "input": "Review: There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with \"Cabin Fever\" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-54b61f6328d04af8a9158ada10e95a54", "input": "Review: \"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the \"Gamera\" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of \"Godzilla\". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish \"Batman!\" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-217dc86e704642249a63ccd6e6b321c4", "input": "Review: According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket. Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-988c138de37644488e8d41b28547b241", "input": "Review: Before seeing this, I was merely expecting another mediocre soft core copy of the much imitated \"Emmanuelle\" series starring Sylvia Kristel. It was really surprising how good this one turned out to be. It actually has a story, and it is very romantic indeed. What makes 'Yellow Emanuelle' so good is it's leading heroine, the beautiful and exotic Chai Lee. She plays her character, Emy Wong so sweetly, that the viewer just has to feel something for her when her dreams crash down around her. Emy Wong is a much-respected doctor, statuesque, with a regal quality. She comes from an important old family, where ancient customs are still practiced. Emy will remain a virgin until she is married, to a man she has never met. The beautiful doctor seems OK with this arranged marriage. It is simply how it is done in her world. However she does not plan on meeting and falling in love with the British pilot who ends up under her care in the hospital where she works. Emy decides to do away with custom, and she gives herself to her Western man. But only after a very long courtship, as Doctor Wong is anything but an easy woman. Her pilot, George, is a good guy, and promises to marry Emy, so that she doesn't lose her respectability and place in her rigid society. Neither one counts on a third party, one Ilona Staller, who destroys their relationship through a series of vicious games. Emy is made to believe that she has been abandoned by her man, that he only played a game with her in order to sleep with her. Her place in society is gone, she has been debased. The film takes a surprisingly dramatic and depressing turn as this proud, elegant woman gives up her career, as well as a sweet relationship with her caring father, and succumbs to a life of drinking and prostitution. I was surprised to find myself so engrossed in this operatically tragic tale. I was on the edge of my seat when George blows back into town, and unknowingly walks into a hotel where his beautiful Emy is working as a prostitute! Classic drama. I imagine many viewers were a bit frustrated by all this drama. One would expect lots of sex and nudity here, but there is not much. And when there is, it is totally non-exploitative, and very artsy and soft-core. If you are a fan of the first Emmanuelle, with Sylvia Kristel, than you most likely will appreciate this, lesser known classic. I was especially impressed by the extra attention to details. The whole segment where Emy takes George to her fathers house on the island is really nice. Her father shows George, and the viewer his impressive collection of Bonzai trees. He has a whole miniature forest built out of these amazing trees. Totally unexpected. After catching it on late night cable TV years ago, I spent much time searching the internet for a copy of the film. When i finally got it i found that the video version was longer. More sex? No, more melodrama. For the DVD release there is a subplot about George suddenly keeling over with some unknown deadly disease! I actually preferred the cable version better. I am glad that this rare gem has been released finally on DVD. I must also mention the beautiful cinematography and the bizarre and catchy 70's soundtrack. While watching this one you just get the feeling that you are watching something very rare, and quite special. I recommend it to thoughtful viewers who don't need sex and violence to maintain their interest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-00f35d0ed60c449eb87fd05320b10f79", "input": "Review: This movie was lame, lame, lame. What a build up! What a let down. All form, no substance. A terrible waste of talent and time. Would not recommend it to my husband's dog, who will watch anything. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-27d4a41dcf1e4c57ba10918ac69687a6", "input": "Review: **** = A masterpiece to be recorded in the books and never forgotten***1/2 = A classic in time; simply a must see*** = A solid, worth-while, very entertaining piece**1/2 = A good movie, but there are some uneven elements or noticeable flaws** = May still be considered good in areas, but this work has either serious issues or is restrained by inevitable elements deemed inescapable (e.g., genre)*1/2 = Mostly a heap of nothing sparked by mildly worthwhile momentsBOMB = Not of a viewable quality- Kalifornia = ***- Unrated (for strong violent material, considerable sexuality, and language)I rented this film expecting an in-your-face summer-Blockbuster-quality celebration of Brad Pitt's face, but was happily surprised and disappointed. This really is more of a drama, and very grim at that... I remember some emotionally intense Duchovny voice-overs.Pitt plays out his possibly un-sexiest film ever with startling talent. Who started out as a hopeless yet harmless \"white trash\" husband became realized as a violent, disturbing alcoholic with a messed mind. During some of the latter stages in the film, I found it hard to keep watching him - he was unpredictable and scary. This proves very good writing and acting.The whole movie is filled with bizarre, sensational scenes that made me hold my breath not fewer than once, and I don't mean action scenes. I mean dialogue scenes so brilliantly crafted I actually winced and gasped at what I was seeing. It was like watching a rhino and a lion put in a cage and watching as they gnawed each other to death. Again, I am very impressed with the screenwriter(s); whoever they are did the impossible: mixed oil and water.I also very much enjoyed Juliette Lewis's performance. It is so rare for this talented young actress to make an appearance these days that when she does it is such a joy. Some of her moments in this film brought me to tears. I mean that. The emotions this girl can arouse in your head are incredible, and I clearly remember getting blurry-eyed on a few occasions.I almost feel like I'm cheating the quality craftsmanship the film makers have displayed by only giving \"KALIFORNIA\" a *** rating. But the dark feelings that it stirs are too potent and depressing to raise it. I do believe that everyone should see this movie though. I truly do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ce2aeae26f64189ba24e1bb4b7b504d", "input": "Review: I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-16fa3952e5494aafab3288641d2901ab", "input": "Review: This movie is best described or compare to \"Big Fish\" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f815945a109847eba16cfad6365de809", "input": "Review: I remember seeing this years ago when it first came out and I was floored by Parker Posey's performance. And the movie was pretty good also. For anyone who's spent a little too much time in the nightclub/after-hours scene, this movie will have a special charm for you. Not too serious, mostly funny, and Parker Posey definitely blazes her talented way through this indie gem.I especially liked the Diaz character (reminded me of every single struggling DJ I've ever known). And many other movies could take a cue from this movie on how to preach the virtue of responsibility without being boring and bland about it.Babaganoosh! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5568d8360404cbd889a78f96750527f", "input": "Review: This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d741bb3db594661bff82f22c84efe1b", "input": "Review: Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ca5689710ab41a6886ff29e2db3b3ac", "input": "Review: I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c584239cb3c4ad5b1144d8f64ce1083", "input": "Review: This film is stunningly beautiful. Goldsworthy's art really benefits with the medium of film because you can see the art at its most beautiful, moving and changing and blossoming. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone. I can think of nothing else to say about it. It's just the kind of movie you HAVE TO see, because it's so visually compelling and left me very refreshed when I left the theatre. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d8c4791e100f431283222005e61d4d75", "input": "Review: Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this \"movie\" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-949ba51d6f4642e7ba7b94a1a31cb69d", "input": "Review: The Underground Comedy movie is perhaps one of the worst comedies I've ever seen. I should have known it was going to be bad when the box had the phrase \"guaranteed to offend\" written on it... meaning that the filmmakers were going to focus more on grossing you out than making you laugh.This movie is an amateurish jumble of childish skits, bad characters, and worse jokes... from the pathetic Bat-Man sketch to the painfully unfunny Arnold Shvollenpecker skit, they just aren't funny. The few skits that are a little funny are few and far between - watching Micheal Clark Duncan play a gay virgin, for example - but even they go on too long and get ruined from Vince Offer's ineptness at comedy.Keep The Underground Comedy Movie underground... bury it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-83ba7370d94d4402a8a3d7195e64e4db", "input": "Review: \"Carriers\" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of \"Star Trek\") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of \"Coyote Ugly\")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of \"Fanboys\") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of \"The Ring 2\") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of \"Runaway Bride\"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of \"Land of the Lost\") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.Indeed, \"Carriers\" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. No,\"Carriers\" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, \"Carriers\" sinks into predictability. \"Irréversible\" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, \"Carriers\" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6aab3f68ea104ff6a9d1849a497025e0", "input": "Review: It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6bfd3cd350f14a32a64b8a28ee9d563d", "input": "Review: I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-99fc53a5442744be8d8487c2d2b41d31", "input": "Review: Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the \"seminary\" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fb9c3c7207d846d9a5b3857ea6051706", "input": "Review: I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? 2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is \"SOOOO in love with Lisa,\" I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.HOWEVER.This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4185bbe9e2fd49be8de7680d3237fc75", "input": "Review: \"Nat\" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend \"IQ\" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry \"Scooter\" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78aafd4bae1f415aad7d23a25926f6c7", "input": "Review: There are just so many things wrong with this movie.To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to \"The Wiz\" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the \"new Ursula\"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b765a6df74624f369af2b4350c6ea635", "input": "Review: Half a dozen short stories of varying interest enlighten us about life in Finland. These stories are interwoven and each contains a scene in which a sonic boom is heard. This indicates that the events depicted happen at the same time.The film begins with a bungy jump which promises some excitement but the early stories are quite low key. The film improves so stick with it. Two broken marriages in stories that follow provide plenty of drama while a scene in a hospital gives us a terminally ill patient begging for pain relief. The last moments with his wife are both convincing and moving.While the various scenes of family life take place in Finland, the themes are of a general nature wherever you happen to live.Collections of short stories are rarely as satisfying as a good tense 90-minute drama. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3e1bdd9e4cc148cd9f687829f985ac41", "input": "Review: I haven't seen this film in years so my knowledge is a little rusty. I do remember thinking that this film is twice the film of Braveheart. It is simply more realistic and has more believable characters. Ridb Roy looks like one would imagine Rob Roy to look like, messy hair and beard with simple clothing. Also the Liam Nesson has a Celtic look about him, he looks like a Scot and more importantly looks like Rob Roy. It's a comparison which angers some people but compare him to Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Gibson is supposedly playing a man who's legend has caused him to be described as a 6 foot 7 giant while Gibson is almost a foot shorter. The story contains a little romance, conspiracy and an underdog story. Sound anything like Braveheart? But instead of a film that cries out \"freedom\", liberty and nationalism we get a film which says honour, love and justice. This makes it a more interesting film. Much like Gladiator. The cast is fantastic and Liam Nesson is a very strong leader in this endeavour. The story is great with how it deals with heroism and humanity. The scene where Mary is raped and she walks out of the burning house with a look of true Scottish strength is followed by her washing the semen from her crotch in an extreme panic. This is something a heroine in Braveheart would never do. Overall this is a stunning and almost flawless watch. Go and see it! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37317fa244e74c7691f8e6478fd78c6b", "input": "Review: Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9436962fdb9f488e84b6217621f9c674", "input": "Review: For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a894bca03d5419fa4bc7c80afa23db7", "input": "Review: It's been a while since I've watched this movie, and the series, but now I'm refreshing my memory! This was a very funny movie based on the classic series! Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott were hilarious together. Bo and Luke Duke help Uncle Jesse run Moonshine in the General Lee. When Boss Hogg forces the Dukes off their farm, Bo and Luke sneak around Hogg's local construction site and find samples of coal. They soon realize that Boss Hogg is gonna strip-mine Hazzard County, unless the Dukes can stop him, with the help of their beautiful cousin, Daisy. My only two problems with the movie was that Burt Reynolds wasn't right for the part of Boss Hogg, and Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane was way too serious. Other than that, I highly recommend THE DUKES OF HAZZARD!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c9e004f5d0a4b1cb471f0f592dd3173", "input": "Review: Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's \"messed up\" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than \"breathless\" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd5867a9b72b4c3c8cb14b9d5325ee00", "input": "Review: This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-80d3e52fb9da4f58ac0afc369646c78e", "input": "Review: This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the \"Passion\" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of \"The Passion of the Christ\" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, \"just doing my job\" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to \"authenticity\", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more \"right\" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, \"The Death\"--not the Life--\"of Christ\"), ultimately a very rewarding one. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-310e0a28e6a946b3a931560a4180a08a", "input": "Review: I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like \"we want to make sure they are playing for the right team\" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb8e6250ef754439ad8c87471ec6b4e8", "input": "Review: Prison is set in Wyoming where work on a new prison has hit a problem so the state board decide to re-open an old state penitentiary that has been closed for 20 years, Warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) is put in charge. 200 odd prisoners are shipped in & they are put to work fixing the rundown prison up including Burke (Viggo Mortensen) who is ordered to break into the old execution chamber, he duly obliges but when he penetrates the bricked up door an intense beam of light shoots out & all the electrics, gas & fire around the prison goes crazy for a few minutes. Burke has unwittingly unleashed a deadly evil force which is in the mood for some killing & no-one is safe...Directed by Renny Harlin I thought Prison was a poor late 80's horror flick that seemed to forget about the small point of having a story. The script was by Empire Pictures regular C. Courtney Joyner who was responsible for writing such 'classics' as Class of 1999 (1990), Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) & Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004) amongst other low budget horror crap that even I haven't heard of & seems to take itself very seriously. The biggest problems I have with Prison are that it's far too slow, it's over 30 minutes into the film before the 'evil force' is even released although the pace does pick up towards the end but by then it was too little too late as far as I was concerned, then there's the fact there's no discernible storyline here at all. For a start it never tries to explain why there's an 'evil force' bricked up in the old execution chamber, it never explains why this force decides to kill random inmates when it's supposed to be out on a revenge mission or why it just doesn't kill Warden Sharpe straight away, no explanation is given to where Burke fits into it even though he looks exactly the same as the prisoner who was electrocuted & has come back, there's no real explanation as to how the Warden is connected to everything that's going on apart from two early nightmare sequences in which he seems to be remembering something although it's never revealed what it is or why. To be honest I couldn't really give you a plot synopsis as the film doesn't have a rigid story which it follows all the way through. The character's are dull & forgettable, the murders are few & far between, the pacing is way off, the whole film is a mess & even ghosts can't shoot straight when it comes to trying to shoot the hero. A less than satisfactory way to spend 100 odd minutes, there really are better things you could be doing.Director Harlin's full American flick debut he does a good job & there's a decent atmosphere but after over an hour of constant drab, dull, dark prison cells & corridors I started to get bored. I just think the look of the film is far too repetitive, bland & frankly lifeless. I didn't think it was scary & the gore is pretty tame apart from the best moment in the entire film when a police guard gets killed when a load of barb wire wraps itself around his body & face with a nice close up of his throat being torn open. Other than that there's a burnt corpse & a mangled body which falls from the ceiling & very little else. There is a scene when the Warden burns all the prisoner mattresses in front of them & then makes them stand all night in their underwear in the yard, I was watching this scene & thought that you'd never get away with doing something like that. Over here prisoners have rights & if the Warden did something like that there would be a national outcry from all those humanitarians & every prisoner would sue the Warden, the prison service & the Government for everything they had & they'd win!With a supposed budget of about $4,000,000 Prison actually had a pretty healthy budget although it doesn't really look like it on screen, sure there's a decent cast & the few special effects that are included are good but overall it's set in the same location with limited ambition. Prison was actually shot in a real Wyoming state prison so it certainly looks the business. The acting is alright, Prison proves that sometimes Hollywood stars not only have one crap horror film skeleton in their closets but in the case of Mortensen he has two with this & the awful The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) both of which I'm sure he'd like to forget about...Prison is a dull, lifeless, colourless & humourless waste of 100 minutes, despite one good gore scene I didn't like it at all as I actually prefer my films to have a story rather than seemingly random events & incidents cobbled together with no narrative sense. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8691c55a2a7415bb8e8c0b03b1c8b11", "input": "Review: One of the less widely lauded of recent Asian period action affairs Gojoe is an at first slow and often curious but overall pretty terrific offering, exciting, layered and beautiful. I'm sad to say I know virtually nothing of the Buddhist philosophy or Japanese history and legend that surrounds this film so its deeper meanings are lost on me, but even without contextual knowledge this is still rich fare, taking a traditional fantasy structure into a, impactful higher plane. The story is of Benkei, a warrior monk and perhaps demon who seeks enlightenment by destroying the demon of Gojoe Bridge: Prince Shanao, himself a mortal seeker after his own higher plane but this time the power of demons. Thus the film becomes a matter of illusions and in Benkei's case, indecision, a conflict in which the real goal is self knowledge, for Benkei to come to terms with his true nature and for Prince Shanao to come face to face with the nature of what he seeks to become. Benkei is even more hampered here by the fact that his dark nature makes him fundamentally at odds with the world, even when not in open conflict he is never at ease. Director Sogo Ishii handles this one as an epic, with measured pace, camera work always stylish and often frenzied, without neglecting the need for more sedate moments to let the location sink in, there is also great use of lighting and fog to give an ethereal atmosphere, there is an air of fantasy to much of the film but outside of the overtly supernatural moments it is a down and dirty fantasy with more period fell than flights of fancy. The cinematography of Makoto Watanbe is important here, vivid and detailed, a richly evocative affair. Actingwise Daisuke Ryu is dignified and powerful with a mysterious savagery as Benkei, while Tadanobu Asano has a driven, cold arrogance as Prince Shanao. Of the leads Masatoshi Nagase rounds things out as an ordinary man, smart and cynical but still unaware of just exactly what the stakes are. The film all fits together well, it is however a touch flabby at times, it begins slowly, some shots are a little drawn out and the epic fight scenes at times go on longer than strictly necessary. As for the fighting it is filmed frenetic rather than for actual moves, it has artistic impact but may disappoint regular action fans, often obscured by objects, flashing blades and fast moving individuals, whirling with deadly force through their adversaries are the order of the day, it is invigorating to watch but in the end I could have done with a little more traditionalism. There is some unfortunate cgi bloodshed as well, it somewhat works in the context but is still distracting. Overall though I found this to be a pretty great film, its not one for regular action fans or swordplay enthusiasts seeking another Azumi, rather a deeper and more mystical beast, its ending in particular will not go down well with fans of the more generic wing of such fare. But as for myself it really hit the spot and for those more adventurously inclined it might do so too. Well recommended at any rate. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-19d6022d12ff4ba0bb32d934c883659f", "input": "Review: This movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2540a522641e44a49a02381c0bef09c2", "input": "Review: If this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c51d8a8e83b2486c90b84206909a2dd1", "input": "Review: he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie . Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5858a5a11721493b84e8a2f2af180945", "input": "Review: While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this \"TRUE\" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-53e349b24f4744a586ca2e3245fb6b7c", "input": "Review: This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e035562162104181903768b35b5dc15e", "input": "Review: \"What the Bleep Do We Know!?\" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8be43d4bb0634ecab40f426360677d68", "input": "Review: Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3927de77385543bbb01af9841e5a2bf1", "input": "Review: Possibly the best movie ever created in the history of Jeffrey Combs career, and one that should be looked upon by all talent in Hollywood for his versatility, charisma, and uniqueness he brings through his characters and his knowledge of acting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c0a62837f21489a81618068c4657e28", "input": "Review: With films like \"Wallace & Gromit\" and \"Chicken Run\" under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of \"Creature Comforts\".Derived from a short done early in their careers, \"Creature Comforts\" is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, \"Are you a liar?\" and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, \"I like them kind of thin.\" is an insect, the Walking Stick.There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.There are two birds in a cage. As the \"wife\" tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.While it might take some time for \"Creature Comforts\" to find it's \"legs\", it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, \"Creature Comforts\" is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4b17ee7f92a46d38e33639ce712b604", "input": "Review: I instantly fell in love with \"Pushing Daisies\". This show manages to put a smile on my face with it's great storytelling, witty dialog and great acting. But that's not all: It also manages to keep you until the end. The basic idea behind the show - Bringing people back to life with one touch, ending the undead status with a second - is interesting and could still be in later seasons. But the suspenseful murder cases, the unique look of the show and the highly proficient narrator add to the experience. But \"Pushing Daisies\" is more than it's parts. It has a certain charm that I really enjoy and I'm looking forward to enter the world of Ned and Chuck for a second season. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7bda55fb61b43e499a883166b5c602a", "input": "Review: Walter Pidgeon is Braley Mason, a civil attorney who takes on a criminal case in \"The Unknown Man,\" a 1951 film also starring Ann Harding, Barry Sullivan, Keefe Braselle, and Richard Anderson. A great believer in justice, Pidgeon accepts a pro bono case defending a young man, Rudi Walchek (Braselle) accused of murder and gets him acquitted. Shortly afterward, he realizes that the man is guilty and was extorting protection money from his victim as well as other shopkeepers in the neighborhood. He is advised by the DA (Sullivan) that Rudi is small change, that to wipe out the organized crime, one has to find the top man. Mason finds the top man, and is faced with a dilemma.\"The Unknown Man\" is a small, black and white film that manages to hold the viewer's interest with its various plot twists, though the plot is somewhat contrived. It's really the story of a good man seeking his god, justice, and what he is willing to do in order to attain it. And that's the most contrived part of all. I suppose there was a time before O.J., the Menendez Brothers, etc., etc., when people believed in justice and the integrity of attorneys. For this viewer anyway, those days are long over.Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job -- his handsome, elegant demeanor and declamatory voice show us a successful, confident man but also a deeply caring one. Pidgeon had a magnificent career spanning 60 years but never really rose to superstardom. He was a solid actor who could play just about anything and did. It may be because by the time he was getting leads, he was well into his thirties and missed being a matinée idol; or it could be he lacked that certain something; or that he was typed early on as second lead to a big female star like Greer Garson. Hard to say. He gives an honest and touching performance here.Very good movie with good performances. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a031dcbd81ba4ba38d312e6ded2eb282", "input": "Review: Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-86c02cd9466f4bcfac7ed26793428619", "input": "Review: Think Pierce Brosnan and you think suave, dapper, intelligent James Bond. In this movie, Brosnan plays against type - and has lots of fun doing so (as does the audience). This is a film about a hired assassin who befriends a harried businessman... and it works!This is a fun movie, with very good scenes (a riveting, on-the-edge Brosnan and a good, compliant \"off\"-the-edge Kinnear have some good lines). My only cavil is that Hope Davis, playing the oh-so-tolerant wife (\"Can I see your gun?\") doesn't appear more often: she could have been a marvellous foil to these men.This movie is like a matador: it plays with the audience, while \"going for a kill\". The ending is awesome because a storyline (with a positive moral!) emerges: this is a frenetic, frantic and fun movie, which does deserve a wide audience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3356213a75294fcd95071660128f7ce9", "input": "Review: I was electrified when I first saw this in 1983 or 1984. Steven Biko is gone half way through the film but the resonance of his courage and wisdom is not forgotten. I didn't when finally in South Africa in 1993. It is also largely a story about friendship and loyalty. When I was in South Africa and heard the audience at a dance recital in Natal sing Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika, my hair stood on its ends. There is a lot to learn from this story for all peoples. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-846a16d2b001447d94ebc16d69be02f3", "input": "Review: For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these \"family films.\" In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes! This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. (\"Touchstone\" is Disney, just under another name.) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6f3bb435d8dd4bfca0d057e45ee8af2e", "input": "Review: Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current \"B\" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a \"blockbuster\" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her \"will she kiss me - will she shoot me\" edge.I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-dd884bcf10ab4771b6b1c006bd25cd13", "input": "Review: I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-090c821a47a045269a6d8741f1b64e8b", "input": "Review: Hey everyone...There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The \"Clown Killer\" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.1 star out of ten. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c0e04f00ad644e9b87090a68de0c5523", "input": "Review: 1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the \"Underworld\" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as \"Space Chimps\", also about critters in space.Go rent \"Apollo 13\" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-32a2401c195c4e52a998e8e7ac2f5d62", "input": "Review: I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with \"old opera singers\" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.Larry from Illinois Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-29d927a10e67481792430c2d810e4b69", "input": "Review: Holly addresses the issue of child sexploitation that is rampant all over the world (some 2 million children are trafficked every year) and does so sensitively and without manipulation--a tall order that the team at Priority Films does with great success. American actor Ron Livington stars in the film alongside newcomer Thuy Nguyen, a Vietnamese actress who plays Holly, and together they bring to screen what is commonplace to the people at the notorious k11 redlight district in Cambodia. Although it tackles a heavy topic, the film holds on to moments of laughter and hope as we get to know the characters up close, keeping the two-hour film from being one that is too difficult to watch. I am glad a film like this is bringing the world's attention to the problem. Child prostitution needs to be stopped and this is a very good first step. It's GREAT and a film EVERYONE must see. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f143fa4a67ff4cf4a0f2aa02016e8488", "input": "Review: Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever . You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f36e3e64a6e44e84a49956f580c03622", "input": "Review: This was a must see documentary for me when I missed the opportunity in 2004, so I was definitely going to watch the repeat. I really sympathised with the main character of the film, because, this is true, I have a milder condition of the skin problem he had, Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB). This is a sad, sometimes amusing and very emotional documentary about a boy with a terrible skin disorder. Jonny Kennedy speaks like a kid (because of wasting vocal muscle) and never went through puberty, but he is 36 years old. Most sympathising moments are seeing his terrible condition, and pealing off his bandages. Jonny had quite a naughty sense of humour, he even narrated from beyond the grave when showing his body in a coffin. He tells his story with the help of his mother, Edna Kennedy, his older brother and celebrity model, and Jonny's supporter, Nell McAndrew. It won the BAFTAs for Best Editing and Best New Director (Factual), and it was nominated for Best Sound (Factual) and the Flaherty Documentary Award. It was number 10 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. A must see documentary! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-06ad88a87f964f8f82bf0d336d4d7e07", "input": "Review: I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-448f50adf5fc4f6caed4e42223fbb16f", "input": "Review: A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.\"\"DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! (\"I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery\"). Truly beyond belief. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c24c61e2c4542449c92a50e745e4dd4", "input": "Review: Russ and Valerie are having discussions about starting a family. The couple live in a posh apartment and run an auction business that deals with valuable collectibles. At the same time, a dedicated adoption agency owner takes a mini vacation and leaves the orphanage in the charge of his father (Leslie Nielsen). Father Harry is in the rental business and he gets the brilliant idea to \"rent\" some of the children of the orphanage to couples like Russ and Valerie. Harry, who becomes aware of the couple'e dilemma, offers a family of siblings for a 10 day rental period! Brandon, Kyle, and Molly move into the apartment with their temporary parents, with amusing consequences, as the new caretakers are inexperienced with kids. But, where is the possibility of a happy ending? This is a darling family film. The actors, including Nielsen as the wheeler-dealer and Christopher Lloyd as the kind apartment doorman, are all wonderful. The script is snappy and fun and the overall production values quite high. Yes, if only life could be this way! Orphaned children everywhere deserve a chance to prove that they are lovable and can give so much joy to the parents who are considering adoption. If you want to show a film to your family that is rooted in good values but is also highly entertaining, find this movie. It is guaranteed to have everyone laughing, even as their hearts are melting. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c8c53e4b5f244acbdbe97d4e743dd1c", "input": "Review: This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e14ec19ea13744ffb6840f6ff736b73a", "input": "Review: This movie was the best movie I have ever seen. Being LDS I highly recommend this movie because you are able to feel a more understanding about the life of Joseph Smith. Although the movie was not made with highly acclaimed actors it is a remarkable and life changing movie that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone. I saw this movie with my family and I can bear witness that we have all had a change of heart. This movie allows people to really understand how hard the life was for the prophet and how much tribulation he was faced with. After I saw this movie,there was not a single dry eye in the entire room. Everyone was touched by what they saw and I have not been the same since I have seen it. I highly recommend this movie for everyone. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fdef52c57f324bd4938ef9dc7e36d5cd", "input": "Review: This is truly one from the \"Golden Age\" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next. All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a4f63a103eed40588b7014c4deb7ab95", "input": "Review: How can anyone not love this movie ? I think it's a hilarious spoof of all the old gangster movies; if you've never seen them, watch this instead. Michael Keaton has a ball in this role as anything goes. One guy mangles the English language everytime he talks and Griffin Dunn plays a clueless D.A., but my favorite role has got to be Joe Piscopo. He has all the best lines. Danny DeVito, Alan Hale, Ray Walston are in this star-studded movie that lampoons gangsters a lot funnier than \"Mafia\" did for the criminal underground. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d34b2e288c484f90bfbefbab15432e8b", "input": "Review: This movie, which starts out with a interesting opening of two hot blondes getting it on in the back of a driver-less, moving vehicle, has quite the quirky little personality to boot. The cast of seven (although one girl doesn't hang around for the bodycount, which is unfortunate because the death toll is already so small as is) are all super-hot, as our story centers around teens partying way out in the desert (an odd but effective choice of setting), who are hunted down by a creepy man in black gloves and jeans who drives a black truck. It predates many of the vehicle-inspired slashers to date (\"The Trip\", \"Joy Ride\", \"Jeepers Creepers\") where the killer's vehicle itself becomes an evil antagonist. The killer himself is quite creepy, and we find solace in the extremely likable heroine in Jennifer McAllister (look at the interesting symbolic contrast of the evil killer in all black, while our benevolent heroine sports all white attire, as scanty and stonewashed as it may be). Director Bill Crain does some really great things with his camera, some neat tricks on screen, and the cast tries their absolute best. There's enough gore in the low bodycount to please the gore fans, and enough T&A from a couple of the girls to please T&A fans. Overall, this flick is highly underrated and widely sought out in the slasher movie world as it's proved quite rare to find on video. Highly recommended. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-78d383e293d440fe8b5f14f878938d7d", "input": "Review: I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a \"Christian\" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this \"highly moral\" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3db3873900b14c0f91a49d17307b020b", "input": "Review: I wouldn't be so quick to look at all the good reviews and say this might be a good show..This show is only good if you don't know what \"talent\" is..I won't even say how offensive it is (I know it can be offensive to a lot of people) because thats not really what bothers me about the show.. What bothers me is that people watch this and think it's funny..It makes me feel like our generation is getting to stupid and I'm actually scared that it will one day be run by people who watch this garbage..Basically the plot is simple..it's about an offensive,self centered,spoiled women(Sarah Silvermen) getting through everyday life..Thats it..Like that hasn't been done a million times..In fact almost every joke either has been done or is racist..Sarah also likes to sing..I like her voice..thats it..not the lyrics..The lyrics are dreadful..which she likes to sing about a lot of things..If you like to see a hot women put everyone else down and make them feel like crap while at the same time farting and saying crap about every race then this show is for you.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e6f3a3ea7816412aa2dd702b482367dc", "input": "Review: This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a \"UFOlogist\" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43084d27d45a4d2f9f928dee3b2ae7d0", "input": "Review: What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some \"hero\" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-74c7aa473caa46d3b5d70113804b71b4", "input": "Review: This movie answers the question, how does a relationship survive when your girlfriend is codependent, clinging, needy, jealous .. and has powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal women?Without spoiling the movie, I can safely assure you it does not, but there's great fun to be had along the way. Uma Thurman is perfect as the mercurial super-heroine, an uber-babe, mysteriously named G-Girl, who unlike most in her sisterhood, is not *always* dedicated to truth, justice, and the American Way. Thurman is also believable as the thoroughly daft, yet somehow still fetching, curator Jenny. When she is dumped for a less endowed but more emotionally secure and well adjusted rival, G-Girl goes ballistic, and what follows is not pretty. It's funny, but it's not pretty ..It's a delightful premise, hell hath no fury like a super-heroine scorned, and those involved don't altogether carry it off, but it has its moments, and I think I'll get the DVD.I liked this movie .. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d20dd104c93474b83838ce0f8fcf170", "input": "Review: Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his \"Chandler\" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-94c22ed8a9864fdfaaed26ab608fbf08", "input": "Review: Well, what can it be said about this disaster? I watched it because it aired on cable. I regret for wasting my time but at least I didn't waste money. The creature is the cheesiest you can get! Please, you need to be very generous not to get angered by the CHEAP Halloween costume. Oh well, there are also displays of horrible acting, f/x, and dialogues. The confrontation with the creature is unbelievable, you can't get a more pathetic scene. This is the worst you can get from direct to video flicks. \"Creature Unknown\" makes FULL MOON PICTURES movies look like \"Halloween\". Avoid this one at all costs, please. The only \"positive\" thing about this trash are the sexy women. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f10df9e6a32456bb7c568e4fe779ae2", "input": "Review: What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.A waste of two hours of my life. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1c85f09f807341ef99626af53d1dd0e9", "input": "Review: Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living \"under a rock\" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life ! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb8c83bc7ab941368dbc363454b1c666", "input": "Review: may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, \"bad\" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood \"southern\" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e3d56982096458fb55a8a49652c73b8", "input": "Review: A super comedy series from the 1990s (Two series were made in total) that suffered in the UK ratings due to poor scheduling. When you are up against established comedies like 'Minder', even the best new comedies are going to struggle to get noticed.Luckily, I caught the series from episode one and followed it avidly. I mentioned it to friends and family at the time, but everyone seemed to have been watching something else. Very, very frustrating.Anyway, I loved both series and never forgot it.Then I looked it up on the internet and found that an ultra-fan was trying to get both series released 'on his own'.Well, both series are now available on DVD. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-93f7ae8c136348bfaaffaa7047e2cd38", "input": "Review: This movie leaves the intellectual mind thinking and trying to analyze the story. I too cannot understand why people would trash this movie.If you are a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, this movie may not suitable for u.This movie presents high degree of realism. The actors and actresses' performance is examplary. Not fake, just natural. No special sound.effects, so special side effects.The camera work is excellent, the music is oh so good. I can't wait to get the soundtrack.It leaves your body numb, like Constant Garderner.The directly has raw talent, certainly not a follower. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-344149b139e64d11be4a5aee0c483486", "input": "Review: Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's \"Ran\". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near \"Ran's\" league. Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's \"Seven Swords\", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-09fa78fd2d2941d3b5615b082ddd4aaf", "input": "Review: A very bad attempt at a young spinal tap. At least the music in spinal tap was good.This is really a very sad case of Hollywood nepotism at it's worst. A bunch of Hollywood execs, bad musicians and producers create some \"poopie\" show so their kids can be in the spotlight. Oh please!!! The potty humor was even bad. I hate this stuff when there is really incredibly talented kids (musicians, actors and artists) out there busting their butts to have success and this crap comes along.Help u all!!!! Why wasn't Gene Simmons in it??? Ameriac's taste in entertainment is going down the toilet. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b5309eb7e71f488daea37da42dc07381", "input": "Review: I can't stand it when people go see a movie when they know they won't like it. My mom likes violent movies, so why did she see it? She rated it just to bring down the rating. So I know that's why it didn't have a higher rating. I give it a 6/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6955c02f3f184f9a83b27ac7194447c7", "input": "Review: This a superb self-contained work that is unconnected with anything before or after. Brat Pack crooning and club exclusivity are not my biscuits of choice, but in this law-free world they make an alluring ambiance. The film is packed with Our Guys, distinctive actors who add distinction to this work with winning performances. The dialogue is a joy. In fact it's a new vernacular. One of the few films that can be watched repeatedly with deepening appreciation.Highpoints include Billy Idol's British loutishness, Ben London's vulturine brassware, Kyle's squirmishness, and the survey of ad hoc philosophies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-02a4cee9ebea47f5b4e0151ccc1d2c6e", "input": "Review: I loved the idea of this film from the moment I first saw a trailer for it. Einstein has always been one of my heroes and the image of him as the kindly, playful, slightly mad genius was enough to get me to see the film. The added spice of Matthau as Einstein made it even better.The story is pure fantasy, but a delightful one. An auto mechanic falls in love with a beautiful woman, who happens to be Einstein's niece. With the help of four Fairy Godfathers of Physics, Ed embarks on a quest to win Catherine's heart. Throw a jealous fiancé (who exemplifies the worst of experimental psychology) and Eisenhower into the mix, and you have pure fun.The film is filled with great character actors and delightfully sweet and daffy performances. Walter Matthau play Einstein as a mischievous imp; cupid with a slide rule. Tim Robbins is wonderfully endearing as Ed and Meg Ryan plays a step above her normal rom-com level. Stephen fry is a joy as the \"RRRatman\" and Ryan's fiancé; who lacks a single romantic bone in his body.The film fell below most radars, but is a delightful treasure that does not grow stale with repeated viewings. It features first-rate writing and performances and is a gentle treat in a less than gentle world. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a496374261cd4d9a964158570fb80860", "input": "Review: Then you must see this film, to understand the reality. Having read the book, Ms. Duke is now an advocate for those afflicted with bipolar disorder; formerly labeled manic-depression.It is hard to believe that in this day and age, people still critique others with emotional problems, or those who seek psychiatric help. Regressive and discriminatory thinking still exists, and this is unfortunate.In this film, the audience sees the pain and suffering Ms. Duke had been through, especially as a child. Many of us may remember her from the teenage \"Patty Duke Show\". She was a household name in America by age 15.You learn of her exploitation by the Ross'(well played by Howard Hesseman). As she was growing up in the 1950's, the stigma was in full-force. However, we see as she advances in her career, yet the illness becomes worse. She goes through bouts of substance abuse and promiscuity; even marries someone whom she divorces the next week; and she has several conflicts and tantrums with her children and elderly mother. All these problem occurred before she received adequate therapy, and medication.A recent survey released by NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) recorded that a majority of US adults fail to recognize most of the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder. It also was released that one in five respondents to the poll believed that people could CONTROL their illness without medication if they wanted to. (bp Magazine, Winter 2006) If you watch this film, you will learn the true story of a talented woman who could not \"pull herself up by her bootstraps\" and \"get well\" until she was educated about her disorder, and received proper treatment. Thank you, Ms. Duke, for being an advocate against ignorance and prejudice. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-10a9b6fa7ad14d32ad35be7392d9b1eb", "input": "Review: OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b7d56f2554b45379782f5bbcedee1ce", "input": "Review: War Inc. is a funny but strange film. The actors are likable, the film is likable also, but I don't know how to describe the plot. I will go into the plot later on. This is a movie with some weird casting choices. Besides John Cusack as a hit-man, which we saw years ago in Grosse Point blank which I liked. Here we have Hilary Duff playing a Russian pop star named Yonica Babyya or something like that. Her character is odd. There is a scene where she sticks a scorpion down her pants. And hits on Hauser(Cusack). There is a twist in the end involving the two characters. It makes sense.That is the only casting choice I am going into. Cause it just plain strange. The whole movie is strange. But at times incredibly funny and I was never bored. Here we have some of the best actors out there. Excluding Miss Duff. She ain't great. But here we have John Cusack, Marisa Tomeii, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley. See what I mean?This is the story of a hit-man named Hauser(Cusack). He is sent down to some Middle Eastern city to put a hit on an oil man named Omar Sheriif(not the actor). While trying to deal with his own personal problems, he has to help out the wedding of a popstar(played by Hilary Duff). And he falls in love with a news reporter(played by Marisa Tomeii). There is a thing about the popstar though. Hauser is disgusted by her. There is a scene where she is singing a song to him and afterwards he throws up.The twist in the end of the film reveals kind of why. The thing about the twist is that I did kind of see it coming. But that doesn't matter. This is a strange, funny, and entertaining comedy. I love most of the actors. So really, how could I not recommend it?War,Inc.:3.5/5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a892d758f8694c0b8c26a7aa2dd12c50", "input": "Review: Besides all of the technical mistakes ....How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b0c76606d39401aae0da7f54326adb5", "input": "Review: Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.( Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2c4dca7a21054166ac7047b4003dd084", "input": "Review: This movie re-wrote film history in every way. No one cares what anyone thinks about this movie, because it transcends criticism. Every flaw in the movie is easily overcome by the many amazing things the movie has going for it. It is an extremely beautiful movie, and I doubt many of us will see anything like it again. I've seen it more times than I care to count, and I still become transfixed every time, with a feeling which is hard to describe. One for the ages. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44f1a5e1b54c486ebe5ab9ee81865d34", "input": "Review: I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.rating: 8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef74034ca34c4c3b9fa677c78cf05f5d", "input": "Review: Without a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5686e7c2128f476eb9607c12a853d369", "input": "Review: i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f05c30575579477bab2fc8e3aaba8f69", "input": "Review: One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s. This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed8643a798a34eda81ebc5eb89dcea14", "input": "Review: Upon seeing this film once again it appeared infinitely superior to me this time than the previous times I have viewed it. The acting is stunningly wonderful. The characters are very clearly drawn. Brad Pitt is simply superb as the errant son who rebels. The other actors and actresses are equally fine in every respect. Robert Redford creates a wonderful period piece from the days of speakeasies of the 1920s. The scenery is incredibly beautiful of the mountains and streams of western Montana. All in all, this is one of the finest films made in the 1990s.You must see this movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9960840c1c974e7d9154e6538c429f5d", "input": "Review: Second movie in the boxset. Originally titled Bloodsuckers, This movie was pretty average. It is kinda boring in some parts but there is some good gore effects, but they're not great though. The movie takes place in the year 2210. Vampires have pretty much taken over the whole world. The V-SAN (Vampire Sanitation) Squad, which also has their own spaceship and is lead by Churchill, who is captured by the vampires, receives a message from an Earth and the team, formed by Quintana (Played by the very hot Natassia Malthe), the rookie officer Damian and the rebels Rosa and Roman (Roman being played by Aaron Pearl from Wrongfully Accused.) V-SAN later meets up with the leader of the vampires Muco, played by Michael Ironside from Total Recall. He has no plans of living peacefully with humans, as he is bent on world domination. While this movie was not a waste of time, I doubt I'll be putting back in the DVD player anytime soon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ae7c02c2b5854cc19a467406ca561e0d", "input": "Review: Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f2c64ef360a0409b972d3415fb11f2ec", "input": "Review: Zombi 3 has an interesting history in it's making. Firstly, it is a sequel to Fulci's hit Zombi 2, with Zombi 2 itself being of course a marketing ploy to trick people into thinking it was a sequel to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead aka Zombi. Confusing enough? Basically, none of the films have anything to do with one another, but who cares when they make money. I guess Fulci himself starting to not care about the production about half way through Zombi 3 when he decided to walk out. Bruno Mattei was brought on board to help pad the film with additional scenes to lengthen the running time.Zombi 3's plot is your typical zombie fare. Scientists develop a serum on an island in the Philippines, terrorists steal it unleashing a plague, and zombie run amok. The scientists want to create an antidote, while the military is set on mowing down everyone without prejudice. There are also brief inserts of a Radio DJ preaching about how we treat the planet. Overall, I actually liked this film. I heard horrible things, but I find the goofy dialogue quite enjoyable. The film seems to be an attempt at raising awareness about pollution, corrupted military, Man playing God, etc. I get the feeling this was at one point a serious film, but it veered off in a weird direction, presumably when Mattei came on board.Besides ripping off other zombie flicks, this was very reminiscent of Romero's The Crazies. You hear the Radio DJ breaking the good news with, \"When you see the men in white suits & gas masks, Run to them for Help.\" This is of course played to the images of the men in white gunning down zombies. Later, they straight up steal a scene from Crazies in which one of the regular, uncontaminated people is killed by mistake.The gore factor is pretty good in this one with zombie hordes around every corner. How is it cool? Let me count the ways…1. Zombie Birth 2. Flying Zombie Head 3. Zombie Birds. 4. Zombie with no legs swimming in a pool. My favorite zombie was the machete-wielding maniac at the gas station. He was bad ass and nearly tore down the entire building trying to kill a girl.Favorite Quote – When a sergeant insists on cremating a zombie, the scientists asks, \"Don't you think that once the ash is in the air, it will fall to the ground, and contaminate everything?\" To which the Sargeant boldly replies, \"Now you're talking science fiction.\" He also continues to mention the \"Science Fiction\" told by the scientists even at the end when everyone dies.Extras: Gallery, Trailers, and Interviews, most notably the one with Mattei where he insists he directed 40% of the scenes, yet cannot recall which ones or any other significant details.Bottom Line: A must see for zombie and Fulci fans.Rating: 7/10Molly Celaschi www.HorrorYearbook.com MySpace.com/HorrorYearbook Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b209337067b4324a4a290a03d5ba02c", "input": "Review: Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... \"Poetry\", \"hope\"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........ Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70f183e041df4bb78e941a4ede439bab", "input": "Review: The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-156bb68008024703af73cd8cc3cd171f", "input": "Review: Okay, you have:Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.and finally:Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: \"I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world.\" Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of \"Brideshead Revisited,\" right?Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - \"hey, it's just the sunlight!\"Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is \"dewy-eyed.\"Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is \"Mrs.\" She's either \"Miss\" or \"Lady.\"When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a \"meanwhile,\") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be \"whisked away\" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)Great drama. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-40d35566df7c4e868e12fd8b267592d1", "input": "Review: Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5b8c4a5da0f649fead1a6d9aed41d1be", "input": "Review: Thankfully saw this on a plane to Singapore recently (thought I'd missed it at the Cinemalaya filmfest). Paris, je t'aime is a collection of 20 short films (about 5 mins each) by 20 directors showing love in various pockets of contemporary Paris.One of my fave segments is 'Parc Monceau' by Alfonso Cuarn (Great Expectations, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), which was done in one continuous shot and features Nick Nolte.The Coen brothers' 'Tuileries' starring Steve Buscemi as a tourist in the metro was hilarious ! Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe in 'Place des Victoires' was haunting.For Maggie Gyllenhaal as an American actress/druggie in 'Quartier des Enfants Rouges' to have portrayed anticipation and heartbreak in such a short period of time was just brilliant.Elijah Wood as a vampire victim in 'Quartier de la Madeleine' was pretty surreal, while Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell played a cute couple in Wes Craven's 'Pre-Lachaise'.Natalie Portman was beautiful as usual as the actress girlfriend of a visually impaired French boy in 'Faubourg Saint-Denis'. But despite the many portrayals of young love, a more mature execution by Gena Rowlands in 'Quartier Latin' was equally aww-inducing.This movie is perfect for those with ADHD because each sequence is driven and carefully thought of.There are also a number of memorable quotes. One in particular is this one from a cheating husband who eventually leaves his mistress to stay with his dying wife in her last days: \"In pretending to be a man in love, he became a man in love.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9579a884d1a486382645bdf75503811", "input": "Review: This shorter movie is the epitome the expected results when the imbecile runs the asylum. It is sad how the futures of these young people were rolled down a craps table when neither Saddam Hussein nor the people of Iraq, God rest the souls of the 350,000 plus that have been killed, had anything to do with terrorism nor al-Quida.Following this movie the astute viewer will need to pick up or download a copy of \"Loose Change.\" This movie is available free on the internet, until the Bush cabal locks it down, by googling-up the very title, as indicated in parenthesis.God Save our country. This will not be done by following the Christo-fascists that controlled the Halls of Congress for over 10 years prior to November, 2006! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cbc51dbe351c475898287b1288dcc698", "input": "Review: I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-738e370f3711414f8d4630522bb2639d", "input": "Review: Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-57c5ad2bd8194abb92fe61de6190c7bf", "input": "Review: I recommend families if possible,to show this to older children only.Some of the stuff in this film maybe too disturbing for little ones to handle.Now that thats out of the way,let me explain about this movie.This is in reality a documentary of a male fox,who in the beginning is protecting his territory and seeking a mate.The beginning with the gorgeous sunrise and music score,is breath taking.You had better soak in as much of the scenery as possible,it'll get ugly later.They gave both the fox and the vixen names,but I can't remember what they are for the likes of me.He fights off this invading male,to win her love.They later on create a den,and the vixen gives birth to four adorable cubs;one of which is blind.There are many happy and playful moments featuring the fox family,but tragedy and bad luck strike all too soon.The first victim is the blind pup,who gets too close to a high tide and is washed away.The second victim is the mother,who while stealing chickens is deceived by a dead chicken hanging on a pole.She unknowingly walks into a foot trap.While trying to escape she rips off part of her foot,causing her to bleed to death.The rest of the fox family is forced to watch her die under a tree.The male is now a single dad,forced to take on the roll of mom and dad.He alone has to teach them the skills they need for life.It later proves not to be enough,when two of the now grown pups meet an ugly fate of their own; thanks to the carelessness and cruelity of man.I won't spoil the surprising ending for you,but it does show the farmer and his dogs close on his tail.And it is a well deserved ending after what the audience and the fox family was put through.I wanted to say that I saw this when it first came out in early 1980s, when we had a thing called Showbiz cable.I was only 4 when I saw it,but I could never understand why they wouldn't let me see all of it.Now I know why,after I secretly watched it when it came on Disney,when I was 9.I felt emotionally gutted after seeing all this evil going on.I was moved to tears.But as dark and ugly as it was,it serves a purpose.To let people what is going to these and other kinds of animals,and why they are endangered.This documentary wanted to get the message across about this endangered species,and I hoped it worked.Its not fake like the True life nature films by Disney,they don't teach about why animals are going extinct.The encroachment of land,the killing off of the foxes main prey,and senseless killing of these beautiful animals;has resulted in them becoming endangered.I wish they would make sequel to this movie,(Glacier Fox 2005)to see if they're being treated better.Maybe have it be about a vixen pup named Teresa and her siblings growing up.This movie also kind of reflects what happens to human families sometimes,especially when one of the parents suddenly dies.The surviving parent takes on the roll of both,and tries to teach the important lessons of life.It isn't always enough to protect them when they're adults,especially when some of their lives becomes ruined.Or they fall victims to tragedy themselves.Best all around soundtrack and musical score I've ever heard. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6be178a4d6af45bb84d745e71d7fb7d8", "input": "Review: I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian \"roughing it.\" These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9d509704d1242949bfc7d4892bb967f", "input": "Review: Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of \"Sex in the City\" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!). Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e52d6d57a1324ea4b359845936fb004e", "input": "Review: A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after \"Murder By The Book\").Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since \"Murder By the Book\" was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e07def721bbe4e34927e7e38ddb83e6b", "input": "Review: I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her \"sexy\" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than \"Devil Wears Prada\" and more interesting than \"Superman\" a great comedy to go see with friends. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-754a8ec806314794a88e2f6695cfc4b6", "input": "Review: What we've got here is a Situation. A man is found to be in distress and people want to help him -- in contrasting ways. At the end they are forced to let it go. You can't fix people. And though in various aspects Reign Over Me is conventionally Hollywood, that message isn't.This story is not about Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife and three daughters in a 9/11 plane who's gone into a nearly psychotic state of PTSS since. It's about what meeting Charlie does to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a dentist in New York who was his roommate in dental school and, knowing about his tragedy, spots him on the street and reconnects. Charlie is riding around on a little toy motorized scooter -- a pretty fanciful contraption for negotiating Manhattan traffic -- with big headphones on over a mass of unruly hair. The hair is Sandler's chief prop to show he's deranged. And the use of music as an escape must hit home to every iPod-wielding subway rider.Charlie is a disaster, but paradoxically Alan, stuck with a controlling wife (Jada Pinkett Smith), soon begins to envy him. Charlie is living like an nutty adolescent boy with a huge trust fund (insurance money from the tragedy), and starts dragging Alan off to \"hang out,\" \"eat Chinese,\" buy records, or watch a Mel Brooks marathon at a rep house. Charlie lives in a nice big apartment protected by a mean landlady, redoing the kitchen over and over, collecting old vinyl of Springsteen, the Who, etc., and playing a video game called Shadow of the Collosus on a giant screen in a big empty living room.Charlie's in-laws are deeply concerned about him, but also somehow resentful, as we learn later. Alan has a new patient who is propositioning him. Charlie's desperation makes us see Alan's. Trying to help Charlie partly permits Alan to escape from his own stifling realities but partly just makes him more acutely aware of them.Cheadle and Sandler make an odd couple, but that doesn't matter, because it's convincing that they might both need each other. Charlie is desperate for the companionship of a friend who never knew his family, because to escape his loss, he is pretending he never had one. And so what if as a roommate Charlie slept naked and sleep walked and had terrible musical taste (no Motown)? Alan wants an escape from his tidy, emasculating life. He's under the thumb not just of his wife but of his dental partners, who lord it over him though it's he who set up the practice. They're white, by the way, and he's black.There's also the lascivious patient from hell, who seriously disrupts things at the dental offices, but starts looking different when Charlie comes by and notices she's a babe. His libido seems to be lurking ready to revive at any minute. He's also drawn to the breasts of Liv Tyler, a psychotherapist in the same building as the dentists who starts trying to treat Charlie when he admits he might need help.Sandler's mad scenes are a little too theatrical, as are a lot of the plot devices (in fact this movie feels like a play at more than one point), but he has several monologues where he expresses his sorrow in ways that are deeply touching.Charlie's not just delusional and sad, but dangerous and violent, and all these efforts to help him start to backfire. The movie is admirable in the way it conveys a sense that people can't be made right. This is an interesting movie -- sometimes a touching one -- and it's the first time 9/11 has been dealt with in terms of survivor suffering. But there is an element of comedy that seems tasteless at times, many of the people are too broadly drawn, and the overly grand Hollywood interiors have dreadful décor; only the Manhattan streets look real. There's a courtroom scene that is preposterous, and Donald Sutherland is a judge who's too good to be true. Alan's family problem is resolved too easily with a phone call. And yet this is worth watching for the acting -- the control and subtlety of Cheadle, and Sandler in a serious role almost as good as the one he had in P.T. Anderson's 2002 Punch-Drunk Love, though that's clearly a better movie, in fact a much better one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-387191b879d04dff8716c50ba2897f90", "input": "Review: A famous orchestra conductor, Daniel Dareus, suffers what appears a heart attack as he finished conducting a concert. Suddenly, we watch him as he arrives in the small town that he has left years before. Since he left so young, and having his name changed contributes to give him a new persona. He has bought the old school building where he plans to stay. The building needs a lot of work. One would expect a man in his position to have all the comforts of the world he left behind to be installed in his new abode, but no, Daniel puts up with the harsh winter in his own way.The local pastor, Stig, whose church has a small choir, comes calling to see if he can interest Daniel in helping, but the conductor has no desire to go back to music. Daniel begins to explore his new universe. The town's people leave him alone. He makes an impression on Lena, who works in the local store where he goes to get his food supplies. Little by little, he comes around and decides to involve himself with the choir. Lena will ultimately fall in love with Daniel.At first, the relationship between Daniel and the choir members is not exactly what he expected. As they get to know him better, they come around to accept him and make him one of them. His new position doesn't endear him to the woman who used to be in charge. The members of the choir are a motley crew, but they realize the change Daniel has made in the way they interpret different songs. The new piece composed for Gabriella, a battered wife, makes a great impact in her life and that of her fellow singers.Daniel's ideas for the repertoire clash with Stig's own. The vicar suddenly begins seeing Daniel in a new light; he is a tormented man who likes to read pornographic magazines before making love to his wife, Siv. His ideas clash with the dogma, as Siv points to him. Stig decides to try to put a stop to what he considers an unhealthy influence of Daniel by firing him as the head of the choir.The choir, which has been invited to participate in a competition travels to Austria. Daniel, who by now has fallen totally for Lena, has a chance to show for the first time in his life his feelings for her when she starts to gets doubts about their relationship. Daniel who is late for his own concert, gets to hear them making extraordinary music even though he is not in among them.Kay Pollak, the director of this enormously appealing film, shows he was the man to direct it. The story involves the viewer from the start. Great part of the success of the movie goes to the ensemble cast that was put together. William Nykvist, who plays the leading role is the best excuse for watching the film. Frida Hallgren, Niklas Falk, Ylva Loof, do excellent work for Mr. Pollak.Stefan Nilsson is the composer for most of the beautiful music one hears. Harald Gunnar Paalgard's cinematography makes the film look better capturing different seasons for the viewer in their beauty. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7343b42335704f72b43a23d658fda994", "input": "Review: Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The \"witty\" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a \"ho\"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-adc960afe7fc4623910a1ece865853cf", "input": "Review: A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after \"Murder By The Book\").Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since \"Murder By the Book\" was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9cb56253eb484e63bbbe7610d8f8108a", "input": "Review: Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, \"Rats,\" what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.2 out of 10, kids. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e957cfd015446a7933783035fbfb248", "input": "Review: This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much \"action\". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9a1f5e2ec004e29a8529d39dbc44f82", "input": "Review: It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a797680cfc064c1f982e8c324f40149d", "input": "Review: From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.\"The House Where Evil Dwells\" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film \"Ju-On: The Grudge\" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b7421eddde544c3b5d402a9886708ef", "input": "Review: It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The \"romance\" with John was completely unbelievable. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc1f3728ec6b442ea6e6c3198e7d8f2e", "input": "Review: 'Stanley and Iris' show the triumph of the human spirit. For Stanley, it's the struggle to become literate and realize his potential. For Iris, it's to find the courage to love again after becoming a widow. The beauty of the movie is the dance that Robert DeNiro and Jane Fonda do together, starting and stopping, before each has the skills and courage to completely trust each other and move on. In that sense it very nicely gives us a good view of how life often is, thus being credible. Unlike some other reviewers I found the characters each rendered to be consistent for the whole picture. The supporting cast is also carefully chosen and they add a depth of character that the main characters get added meaning from the supporting performances. All in all an excellent movie. The best thing I take from it is Hope. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fde30c53cac4904aa0c8c2b4aa1ef48", "input": "Review: I am a lover of B movies, give me a genetically mutated bat and I am in heaven. These movies are good for making you stop thinking of everything else going on in your world. Even a stupid B movie will usually make me laugh and I will still consider it a good thing. Then there was Hammerhead, which was so awful I had to register with IMDb so I could warn others. First there was the science of creating the shark-man, which the movie barely touched on. In order to keep the viewers interested they just made sure there was blood every few minutes. During one attack scene the camera moved off of the attack but you saw what was apparently a bucket of blood being thrown by a stagehand to let you know that the attack was bloody and the person was probably dead (what fabulous special effects). Back to the science, I thought it was very interesting that the female test subjects were held naked and the testing equipment required that they be monitored through their breast tissue. Anyway this movie had poor plot development, terrible story, and I'm sorry to say pretty bad acting. Not even William Forsythe, Hunter Tylo or Jeffrey Combs could save this stinker. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41724c038a8a4bf786796d337d22e918", "input": "Review: STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Mike Atherton (Dudikoff) is peacefully making his way in the Wild West when he spots a group of men mistreating a lady. Being a gentleman, he naturally steps in and puts a stop to this and in doing so kills the son of a nasty enforcer. This is just the beginning of a all guns blazing battle to the finish from which there will be only one winner.M Dudikoff is an action star who's never truly managed to take off with me. Maybe I discovered him too late and after the other film I saw with him in it last Monday, The Human Shield, it was just another Dud (ha ha) added to the list. But I have a thing for westerns, being films that just sort of transport me to a different time and place and provide real escapist entertainment and with this Dudikoff has picked one of his better scripts, as his films go anyway.The film hits a few low points in the shape of a naff central villain, sounding like a blank Marlon Brando and some generally ropey acting from some of the cast, along with the obligatory cheap looking sets. But if, for some strange reason, your life ever depended on watching a Dudikoff film, this would be one of your best choices. *** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e2d57d6bf1648cfbcfd5e9e09e99fa3", "input": "Review: This movie will tell you why Amitabh Bacchan is a one man industry. This movie will also tell you why Indian movie-goers are astute buyers.Amitabh was at the peak of his domination of Bollywood when his one-time godfather Prakash Mehra decided to use his image yet again. Prakash has the habit of picking themes and building stories out of it, adding liberal doses of Bollywood sensibilities and clichés to it. Zanzeer saw the making of Angry Young Man. Lawaris was about being a bastard and Namak Halal was about the master-servant loyalties. But then, the theme was limited to move the screenplay through the regulation three hours of song, dance and drama. What comprised of the movie is a caricature of a Haryanavi who goes to Mumbai and turns into a regulation hero. Amitabh's vocal skills and diction saw this movie earn its big bucks, thanks to his flawless stock Haryanvi accent. To me, this alone is the biggest pull in the movie. The rest all is typical Bollywood screen writing.Amitabh, by now, had to have some typical comedy scenes in each of his movies. Thanks to Manmohan Desai. This movie had a good dose of them. The shoe caper in the party, the monologue over Vijay Merchant and Vijay Hazare's considerations, The mosquito challenge in the boardroom and the usual drunkard scene that by now has become a standard Amitabh fare.Shashi Kapoor added an extra mile to the movie with his moody, finicky character (Remember him asking Ranjeet to \"Shaaadaaaap\" after the poisoned cake incident\"). His was the all important role of the master while Amitabh was his loyal servant. But Prakash Mehra knew the Indian mind...and so Shashi had to carry along his act with the rest of the movie. It was one character that could have been more developed to make a serious movie. But this is a caper, remember? And as long as it stayed that way, the people came and saw Amitabh wearing a new hat and went back home happy. The end is always predictable, and the good guys get the gal and the bad ones go to the gaol, the age-old theme of loyalty is once again emphasized and all is well that ends well.So what is it that makes this movie a near classic? Amitabh Bacchan as the Haryanvi. Prakash Mehra created yet another icon in the name of a story. Chuck the story, the characters and the plot. My marks are for Amitabh alone. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28aaebdd3819401d8e4a14dde75af288", "input": "Review: Never see this movie.It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-41958bcee1a840d5ba1e715ee1a57cf1", "input": "Review: While this movie isn't a classic by any stretch, it is very entertaining as I remember it. I saw it about 15 years ago on HBO and loved the movie. It was written by the same guy that wrote and directed \"Arthur\" and though it isn't as funny as that movie, it does show the potential that Steve Gordon reached with \"Arthur\". Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3f5e02da4c8446a8f9e8145c459cfa0", "input": "Review: I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1014ab3774434d69a91359a52276eb33", "input": "Review: It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week. This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cb371a8e25934afbbd94a4e3241b3ff1", "input": "Review: I like films that don't provide the typical \"happy ending,\" and that's my main reason for my liking of this movie. Alice Marano (Danes) and her best friend Darlene (Beckinsale) are arrested in Thailand for narcotics smuggling after a tip anonymously phoned in to the Thai authorities. The film does a solid job of keeping viewers guessing as to whether (or which) of the girls was involved, and Bill Pullman is perfect as their sleazy lawyer. Jacqueline Kim turns in a terrific performance as his more kind, magnanimous wife, Yon, who is also an attorney. I wish the girls had been abused more in the prison, as another commenter has suggested, as I've heard that Thai prisons can be quite brutal. Where this film grabs me, however, is its ending. Alice subjects herself to a sentence of 96 years in total so that Darlene can be pardoned, and we (the viewers) realize that they are both innocent. Any film that defies my expectation of the ending wins extra points with me, and this well-acted drama is certainly deserving. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b4fcc917fea04aa19ddba7a5a62e8aca", "input": "Review: This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes \"The Attack of the Monolith Monsters.\" This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6e286f44c77243e882410c921da55803", "input": "Review: The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-682f323871a747df9a441cf3aec2a36e", "input": "Review: Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b201cad60de4a0b8700c81993ec5058", "input": "Review: Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6ad3d61b7ba4e8f8b8bf9b1ec70a3d7", "input": "Review: May contain spoilers.I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-16ed225042fd4b8691eb08299124bc35", "input": "Review: THE MAN IN THE MOON is a warm and moving coming of age drama centering around a farming family in the 1950's. The main story follows a 14-year old girl (Reese Witherspoon) who develops a crush on a 17-year old neighbor (Jason London) who ends up falling for her older sister (Emily Warfield) and how an unexpected tragedy alters this family's dynamics forever. The 1950's are lovingly evoked here and the screenplay gives you characters you come to care about almost immediately. Witherspoon already begins to show the Oscar-winning talent she would develop in this early role and London makes a charming leading man. Warfield lends a quiet maturity to the role of the older sister that is effective as well. Kudos to Sam Waterston and Tess Harper who play the girls' parents and Gail Strickland, who plays London's mom. I was unexpectedly moved by this quiet and affecting drama that stirs up strong emotions and gives deeper meaning to the phrase \"family ties.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-12daa7c5f62146a295c18bb392aea62c", "input": "Review: Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed \"Phone Booth\",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),\"Intermission\",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),\"Blue Crush\",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),\"All The Real Girls\",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3013ae36c42146c0ae5bda2ba07ba8f2", "input": "Review: Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having \"killed\" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.You will remember this movie for many years.See it! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-079ee6d6b49348c2a75083c15de78ee8", "input": "Review: When an actor has to play the role of an actor, fictional or factual, the task becomes much more difficult than playing a role. In A Double Life,Ronald Coleman surpassed himself as Anthony John, the tortured double personality. He put into that character all his talent and sincerity. The facial expressions, mannerisms,gait and stance spoke eloquently of what Anthony John was going through while playing Othello on stage. Coleman also did extremely well as a Shakespearean actor in those short scenes as Othello that were part of this gem of a movie. Closups of Coleman's face as Othello tortured by doubts about the fidelity of Desdemona were in themselves scenes worth watching.Add to that, his character's off stage desperation and only someone with Coleman's depth of acting perception can achieve. It was like watching Spenser Tracy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except this double role was much more profound and poignant. Shelly Winters looked so sweet, vulnerable and gorgeous at the same time and added her talent to the movie. It is believed that Ronald Coleman liked his role in this film above all others he played and went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor in 1947. I would see this movie repeatedly and never feel bored. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4ac2a4809b85438eafe980f559e3c3b1", "input": "Review: This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-24f257c73dcc4818b296ace674be699f", "input": "Review: What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no… It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store… The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy (\"The Quatermass Experiment\") and Dick O'Neill (\"Wolfen\") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f28653bf333a409a84692927bc0b0725", "input": "Review: Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local \"protection\" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with \"mystery helpers\" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-db5699ae057144598856e3652404cf02", "input": "Review: I just saw this movie the other day when I rented it, and I thought this was going to be just another movie with a girl trying to prove a point, but Diane joined boxing because she wanted to. I thought this movie was good. I gave it a 8/10. That's how good it is. Plus a movie with Michelle Rodriguez is always good. Even is she's been in only six. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b89f0e9eeb043cd839d2a8cf45a233e", "input": "Review: I've seen a lot of crap in my day, but goodness, Hot Rod takes the cake. I saw a free screening in NY the other night. I can only hope they show the funny version to the paying customers. The big laughs were sparse, the plot was uninteresting, and the characters were one dimensional at best. One highlight is a hilarious dancing scene with Adam Samberg. It was priceless and was the only scene I truly had a hearty laugh at. Other than that, I can only recollect randomness and dead air. SNL & Samberg fans may be disappointed. I know I was expecting more from it. But it short, I definitely would not recommend attending a free screening or paying to watch this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-46b5633067b74590be024d666964bbc3", "input": "Review: I found Horrorvision almost unwatchable. While only 70 minutes in length I still found myself hitting the fast forward button again and again. The acting was of the `if I scream and say ***k a lot I'm intense' school. And the story was at best a scenario that had yet to be fleshed out.While I never go to Full Moon for great film making I have never seen them produce as bad a piece of junk as this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ba0f8af3230740688066032c19ecd34b", "input": "Review: Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ed803af9400d42f69a7dc2931a9fabc2", "input": "Review: There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming \"You're a super crime-fighting valentine!\"Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming \"HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!\" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final \"twist\" is more \"Huh?\" than \"Hah!\" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01a92902599f4bf3bfe672417295913f", "input": "Review: This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-81309cf8d65243baad077d4ab5df32da", "input": "Review: If the very thought of Arthur Askey twists your guts, don't worry, you can still watch and love The Ghost Train, like the equally marvellous Back Room Boy, it is a film that is simply too damn good to be sunk by a single performance, even that of the lead actor. Personally, I love Askey, perhaps it's because I go into his world, rather than unreasonably expecting him to come into mine, which is a mistake too many people make. The Ghost Train is so intensely atmospheric that you couldn't conceivably watch it without being amazed at the deep, dark world it transports you to, it is immersive in a way that few cheap and cheerful flag-wavers managed to be during the desperate early '40s and it's a film that I would imagine few people have ever watched just the once. The cast are, without exception, extraordinarily good, perhaps Linden Travers lays it on a bit thick, but against the backdrop of a lonely railway station in wartime, she could hardly play a nutter and not stand out. The sad passing of the lovely Carole Lynne earlier this year broke the last link we had with this incredible film and now it really is in the past, but waiting patiently for us to press play. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a831813841ec45f99ddf4381b4edc691", "input": "Review: If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our \"hero\") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around… After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-71ce7d92580e4147934a12a55d4e37f8", "input": "Review: This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.Real Rating, -10 Disgusting Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7394df74c9444f738a5427970e487e0a", "input": "Review: First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7bdacec46e546e286df392e928cc8df", "input": "Review: saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7f281a54c51e42cb8a65a57baa6b4cdd", "input": "Review: If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f07bcc1b39c48baa7e8fdb3cc185d3e", "input": "Review: I've been watching \"Dick Tracy\" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as \"Mumbles,\" and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c02caa056be41859d3cc84c68900ed6", "input": "Review: A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d27dde5cc89845b5a189a3a64c46cfe3", "input": "Review: Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ae3f3c42f4c4082b688c673ba28749c", "input": "Review: The deceptive cover, title and very small hidden print of Power of Prayer tricked me into renting this movie.It started out really well and pulled me in. I REALLY liked it. Between 1/3 and 3/4's of it, the film started throwing in things that were not set up and made no sense. My first thought was, \"This is not written by someone who knows how to tell a story.\" I ended up re-watching parts of the movie, thinking I had missed something.By the time I reached the last 1/5 of the movie, it was all BORING, ANNOYING, RELIGION THUMPING DIALOG that made no sense, said nothing, and was annoying to listen to; I turned off the sound and did a fast forward to the end.Don't waste your time with this flick.Beware of DVDs labeled Whitlow Films and Level Path Productions.And I'm a practicing Catholic. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7c8a89513754aeaa2ba759759b0031b", "input": "Review: If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c59cdd8e70fb4bc48a9f93b171d9508f", "input": "Review: Although this movie has some weaknesses, it is worth seeing. I chose it because of the cast, and applaud Bonham Carter and Branagh for choosing roles different from those they have taken in the past. Both portray very troubled people, complete with warts, but make them likeable because of their humanity. The story is touching, but it is the performances that soar. Bonham Carter's \"Jane\" is a remarkable achievement, whose quest for romance opened my eyes to aspects of being disabled that I had not thought of before, but was interesting as well for other reasons. I felt the movie ended too abruptly, but better that than a drawn out emotionally manipulative ending (see \"Stepmom.\") The very real English setting added to my enjoyment - it was England in the 90's, both urban and rural, without being depressing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-af2f53348877456fb151e01bbddc7e83", "input": "Review: I liked how this started out, featuring some decent special-effects especially for a film 50 years old. There was some pretty impressive scenery. However, the film bogs down fairly early on with some very dumb dialog as the males all try to flirt with Anne Francis \"Altaira Morbius.\")Viewing this in the '90s after a long absence, it was fun to see Francis again, an actress who has done mostly television shows since this film was released....and is still acting. It also was interesting to see a young-looking Leslie Nielsen (\"Dr. John J. Adams\"), who I wouldn't have recognized had it not been for this voice I watched half of this movie before the boredom came almost overwhelming and I had a strong desire to go to sleep. I appreciated them re-doing this VHS tape in stereo. but it was a weak effort. This is one those overrated film where \"elites\" think is so \"heavy\" and \"thought-provoking.\" That's nonsense. It only appeared \"intelligent\" because the rest of the '50s sci-fi films were so stupid!!Some if the early scenes would have looked great on wideescreen, which I didn't have at the time of this writing. Perhaps another look - this time on the 2.35:1 widescreen transfer would make me change this review. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a84dc44761a648e981ad2a436cbb09bc", "input": "Review: Errol Flynn is \"Gentleman Jim\" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a \"shanty Irishman\" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-abe79f477be44298bbcca44087634864", "input": "Review: I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-dee8f87fa19a4283a65422376ad987b1", "input": "Review: Unfortunately I made a mistake and I paid 7 Euros at the movie theater to watch this shallow meaningless movie. My points;Film is based on 2 things;1) Ethnical point of View: As it happens on most of the American Films, the writer thinks itself as an expert after learning 2 or 3 things about the Asian culture. But unfortunately it is not enough. Knowing kunefe and 2 names of other foods doesn't make a person understand a culture. For example shaving is the sign of clean life in Asia but everyone was trying the girl to stop that. Lebanese people are Christian (Ok they got that) and their cultural forms and beliefs and approaches are completely different from other Arabic countries. The main difference between eastern and western culture is we don't make ethnocentrism. So we don't judge people after their first question about our life as the father figure did in all of the film. 2) Sexual revolution of a girl: There is nothing much to say about this. Show me 10 girls which had these on their sexual awakening than I will say that I am wrong.I wrote this comment because the producers are promoting the film in the black humor genre. Please watch Dr.Strangelove and understand the meaning of black humor. A black humor has to reflect the truth and has to focus the audience to the funny parts of it. Where is the truth? Where is the meaning about the movie. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9a05a1898d344bcb1965f14f9f728f1", "input": "Review: There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture \"Witch Light,\" and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the \"Lady in Black.\"So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the \"actress\" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f51a961f1b2b46ac9b3e9eb64849787b", "input": "Review: The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-101720ee199b449b8e59a08f909846c5", "input": "Review: I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2701c243dff6411396c48c06c2479aa8", "input": "Review: This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, \"Oh...highly polished mahogany!\"Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are \"regular\" people in other shorts.For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-022ab87ad48149428c8ab3dda1a78301", "input": "Review: Loony Tunes have ventured (at least) twice into the future. The first time was with the brilliantly funny \"Duck Dodgers\". The latter time was with this … um … effort. \"Loonatics Unleashed\" isn't without merit, and might be considered a good product were it not that it isn't up to Warner Brothers quality. WB cartoons are noted for their cheeky humor, appealing at least as much to adults as to children. These pedestrian superhero episodes, on the other hand, cannot fail to convince adults to pass them up.The premise of the series is that 6 ordinary individuals (2 bunnies, a Tasmanian devil, a duck, a roadrunner, and a coyote) live on the \"city-planet\" of Acmetropolis and acquire super powers when a meteor strikes the planet in 2772. What's confusing is that the titles section features these individuals with a count-up to 2772 from the 21st Century. Cute, but frelling stupid.In each episode, the super sextet – amid mildly amusing but essentially banal banter – fight various super villains. For the most part, these are types that appear in every mediocre superhero adventure series and even some of the better ones. Like many mediocre superhero series, this one takes its villains far too seriously for the context. And of course these guys are the only characters that laugh – the usual evil laugh, of course. Why is it that villains in predictable superhero adventures always – ALWAYS – laugh evilly at every opportunity? Animated material of this sort seems to leave laughter exclusively in the province of villains and (occasionally) their henchpeople and/or henchthings.In point of fact, the makers of this series missed their best bets right from the get-go. The superpowers of the characters are sometimes based on their previous normal abilities, but sometimes not. The problem here is that we don't see enough WB looniness. Lexi and Ace have fairly ordinary biologically generated energy weapons and have virtually no personality traits one could describe as \"Bugs-like\". What we have here is basically the silly and drekish \"Teen Titans\", including its overly \"modern\" animation \"look\", but with animals. Feh.The other misstep by the program's creators is (or are) the villains. As noted before, these are not terribly imaginative and do the evil-laugh bit excessively. Amazingly, the writers totally missed the obvious technique of making villains from stock WB characters as well as the protagonists. Adding to the fun could have been, say, Jupiter Sam – as well as The Fudd, still hunting wabbits – as well as Tech E. Coyote converted into a really neurotic villain – and so on. Ah, the sadness of missed opportunities….Sadly, this whole production has gone into too much overtime (that is, a 2nd season). Nevertheless, we can rejoice that there's something new out there for the 14-going-on-9 crowd. The rest of us can hope for a 3rd season of Duck Dodgers. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f3be2d9fcae4137aff42b10e8643179", "input": "Review: There is one great moment in *Surviving Christmas* that almost makes it worth the pain: James Gandolfini cracks a shovel over Ben Affleck's stupid head.This movie serves as yet another unfortunate example of James Gandolfini proving what a great actor he is whilst simultaneously besmirching his career by acting in this film.Young and wealthy ad exec, Drew Latham (Ben Affleck) has been inculcated into believing that one must never be alone on Christmas. (And there, from the outset, is the underlying problem with our suspension of disbelief in this idiotic movie: how many people of Drew's social standing, in 2004, truly care one way or another whether Christmas is spent alone or with half the family or with a fifty-dollar prostitute?) Storyline finds Drew buying off a family to spend Christmas with, on the condition that they pretend to be his own, insensately ignoring all the indications to the contrary that his money has not bought the emotions he was seeking.For $250,000, a surly suburban truck driver, Tom Valco (James Gandolfini), and his disheveled wife, Christine (Catherine O'Hara), agree to be Drew's ad hoc family, against protests from their son, Brian (a very one-dimensional Josh Zuckerman) and daughter, Alicia (a very soft-focused Christina Applegate). Drew then spends the rest of the movie supposedly recapturing his youth or - something. The messages in this movie are as twisted and illogical as its dry-mouthed storyline. Fraught with overt psychoses, Drew plasters a fake smile on his face and blindly remains in denial against every denigration that he was supposedly buying the Valco family to avoid.Which begs the question: If Drew is paying these people to recapture some semblance of joyous familial emotion, how psychotic must he be to pretend happiness amongst their barbs and mental anguish over his presence? It is not a case of the Valco family hiding their true feelings and pretending to be happy while around Drew - three of the four members make it patently clear they despise him. Is he so incognizant that he cannot see that his money is not buying him the \"family\" atmosphere he was inculcated into believing was a truth in the first place? As with all movies this opprobrious, one wonders how *four* screenwriters could possibly get so tangled in their own narcissistic dreams of appearing in a credits sequence that they will overlook any semblance of plausibility, or intelligence.Director Mike Mitchell, who was responsible for *Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo* - stop right there. 'Nuff said.Gandolfini and O'Hara somehow manage to shine, proving their mettle amongst this mess. Christina Applegate is willowy and cutesy and blond and fiery in all the right places, scathingly cutting Drew into little strips of carcass for most of the movie, then doing an about-face and falling in love with him because the script tells her to.And I wouldn't go so far as to say that Affleck is a bad actor, but John Schneider better look over his shoulder. There's a whole new level of Desperately Seeking Talent in town. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c084def05ff24bbfb6021cf7c7771d5a", "input": "Review: I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-59ffda5c55294809ae40e9d9c44adff5", "input": "Review: For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness (\"I can see!\" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock. There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun. One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will. Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science. If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: \"I can see!\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-46daa06963254175b9e0abbab2b23c5a", "input": "Review: \"Voodoo Academy\" features an \"Academy\" like no other, one that houses only six male students in one bedroom. These teenage guys are instructed in religion by a sinister young priest, who enjoys tormenting and comforting them simultaneously. The sole administrator of this \"Academy\" is a young and seductive headmistress, and she retains her handsome charges on a short leash, so to speak.Sexual overtones abound, and the director obviously has high regard for young male bodies. These young actors occasionally strip down to their designer underwear to sneak about the \"Academy,\" and their sexuality is the entire focus of the movie. If you're not interested in the male form -- stay away!Burdened by weak and awkward dialogue, this low-budget exploitation piece just stumbles along with a few laughable special effects tossed in between the yawns. The mood is claustrophobic, with tediously long takes, a handful of cheap sets and few costume changes. These visual elements come interspersed with seemingly unending sequences of banal dialogue, intended as character and plot development. It gives one the feeling it was filmed in three days... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5fd09c452f1948f492a85fec354edd30", "input": "Review: North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the \"Arabic\" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-50c716423995430588afae284705bec1", "input": "Review: It is not obvious from viewing this film (so I recommend viewers research the people who present their case in it) but this presentation on the realities of Islam, and its encouragement of violence and intolerance against all non-Muslims is lacking objectiveness, and also completely fails to factor in the human condition. It is one thing to document that the Koran says many things about how a devout Muslim is required to interact with non-Muslims, but any realist is able to realize that not every human who feels himself or herself to be a follower of Islam, will agree with and comply with all tenets of that faith and system. There is reason to call much about the presenters into question, such that viewers need to see the presentation with a healthy skepticism; don't swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker, without some thinking of your own.One specific, for instance, is researching the person Walid Shoebat; who claims to be a former Muslim who perpetrated an act of terrorism in Bethlehem. There are many wise people in the world who believe neither of these assertions. I am not nor have I ever been a Muslim. I have never read the Koran. I am not a Christian, nor a member of _any_ faith. But I am an intelligent and discerning human. While the film is quite disturbing, in its presentation of how SOME Muslims view their obligation to Islam; I remind you that there is more to Islam than the views of the fundamentalists. Just as their are fundamentalists and evangelical Christians, so, too, there are variations in the intensity of belief and obligation among Jews and Muslims.When you watch this film, you need to have the salt shaker on hand. One grain will not be enough, you'll need more. Please use your own mind and think for yourself, research what is presented, and evaluate the state of the world and how Islam fits within it based on more than what is said in 98 minutes of video. There is a common thread of political affiliation among those who put this film together, indicating a definite bias. Be your own brain. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44876220538e4a998d4c0be968fb86a0", "input": "Review: Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d1fdf9355a3547eb8d040df427639d8e", "input": "Review: Until I saw this special on HBO, I had never heard of Eddie Izzard. I sure am glad that I have now! He is one of the funniest comedians I have ever seen! Rarely has a comedian immersed himself so completely in his craft then Eddie. I could not stop laughing for the entire show. If you like to laugh you HAVE to see this special! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab265b4cf1e6403da994e9f19be57615", "input": "Review: I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd2ba07057934215a46b74fdedc6214d", "input": "Review: Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.This was one of the \"youth\" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-03df5447afe4437f81a89a75dc7965f8", "input": "Review: I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bc5559c4705f4e37a4e0854452680685", "input": "Review: Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a5a49690dbb428e9ee5ef3a78066992", "input": "Review: One of the best love stories I have ever seen. It is a bit like watching a train wreck in slow motion, but lovely nonetheless... Big Edie and Little Edie seem a bit like family members after watching this movie repeatedly, and are infinitely quotable: \"It's a goddamned beautiful day, now will you just shut up?\" The opening explanation of Little Edie's costume only promises that the movie will live on forever, and so will Big Edie \"The World Famous Singer\" and Little Edie \" The World Famous Dancer.\" Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7cf72a2594ea4797b4a989643e4baadb", "input": "Review: Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-66afdafb394a4b938d3dbd1bc3fde1a8", "input": "Review: We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide \"Infomercials\" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c57d30d445f417281fb85930aa23a1c", "input": "Review: The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42b186e202404ab3ae32a1c84cf80966", "input": "Review: In my mind the best of the Ealing comedies and one of my favourite films of all time. The theme of workers v. management (with lots of talk of unions and rights) perhaps dates the film a bit now as it's no longer a subject discussed all that much but that doesn't stop \"White Suit\" from being a show stopping classic.The plot, about a man trying to create a revolutionary new fabric which ends up putting the textiles industry into turmoil, doesn't sound exciting when written down but the film retains that essential spark of fantasy mixed with reality that marks it out as a true Ealing comedy. The fabric repels dirt and can never wear out! The titular white suit that Alec Guinness wears throughout the second half becomes the centrepiece for several iconic images and sequences, such as Guinness being able to use his indestructible thread to scale a sheer wall! The script itself is full of dry wit - \"Is he all right?\" \"Yes.\" \"Pity.\" - and characterisation is first rate. I'm always astonished by the wonderful direction in these films as well. Comedies of later eras would adopt a \"point the camera at the actors and let it roll\" mentality but the Ealing films always attempted interesting lighting and angles and innovations. This film is no exception.Of course, it's the cast that lifts the material to dizzying heights. Alec Guinness gives a fantastically understated performance, with eyes that convey wonder, joy and crushing defeat whenever the story demands it. Stratton is a man oblivious to everything except his work. Such an insular character could quickly have become boring or irritating but Guinness effortlessly makes him likable, so much so that the closing stages of the film generate a real sense of urgency as Stratton tries to come out on top in a world that wants to bury everything he's ever worked for. Joan Greenwood plays another of her strong female roles and is an absolute delight to watch as usual, as are befuddled Cecil Parker and slimy Michael Gough; everybody gets laughs without even trying to. It's comical British understatement at its finest.\"The Man in the White Suit\" is 81 minutes of sheer brilliance, with a great plot, great cast, sparkling wit and healthy dollops of cynicism. Absolutely top notch. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-468ed6b8ccad4656aa9a3efcee7148e7", "input": "Review: Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.*SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called \"Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version\" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called \"vampires\", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! \"Pathetic\" is the only only word that I could use here.Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the \"briliant\" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying \"cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore\" !!!This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b33a9dcea204ba586c816a43c0ae93f", "input": "Review: With no fault to the actors (they all put on great performances), the overall story was not very well executed. The movie opens with a great zinger: a crazy old guy forces a young Aborigine girl's car off the road. But then, we're forced to endure 40 minutes of character development with an entirely new group of characters ... and we don't know why until the 40 minutes are up. It turns out that they are the ones who eventually discover the girl's body ... and the story progresses from there.While the story does pick up at that point, it really goes nowhere. After 2 hours, I asked myself: was there a point to this, or was it just to see the characters struggle with accusations of racism and stupidity of how they handled the discovery? The story was ultimately unsatisfying and felt unfinished. While it is well acted, there's not a strong enough backbone in the film to warrant recommending it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a68a90c85ecc4e6696c5d4fa63bf2c0e", "input": "Review: I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9ac69facb4b485496657f9cb7cb718d", "input": "Review: Absolutely the worst film yet by Burton, who seems to be getting worse with each film he directs. A miserable script loaded with cliches is only the first of many objectionable aspects to this film. This is the kind of movie where every time something happens, you'll be sure to hear someone shout out \"he's lost his gun!\" or whatever it is to let everybody know. Carter is really awful and so is Wahlberg, who can't play this straight and be convincing. Very nice effects and photography, but poor music in the John Williams mold by Burton's crony Elfman. Heston appears in a nonsensichal scene to spout out his most famous catch-phrases from the first movie. Very poor results.If anyone else out there also saw \"Sleepy Hollow\", they will probably have noticed, as I have, the declining quality of Burton's films. I've heard that this particular project was produced by others and that Burton was brought in as director, in which case his judgement should be questioned. But I think he has allowed any possible vision he might have had earlier in his career to slip; the evidence is there in the films. In \"Sleepy Hollow\", he couldn't decide what kind of movie he was making, whether it was a comedy or a real horror movie, and the population of british character actors (Chris Lee, etc.) made you also think it was kind of a monster rally film (those are never scary, as horror fans know). The movie couldn't succeed on either horror or comedy because it was so schizophrenic, and no style had been developed to smooth the two together. \"Planet of the Apes\" is much the same way, and the result comes off more like \"Total Recall\" or \"Tango and Cash\" than like sci-fi. He's also fallen into the rut of so many other \"big\" directors of trying to satisfy the entire possible audience. Word to Burton, if you're out there -- pick something and do it straight, or use some style to peice it all together (as in \"Mars Attacks\" or \"Beetlejuice\") or you might as well retire, because people like me that are fans of your movies will stop going. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7ae6a5411edc4a1290aca0027066f6a6", "input": "Review: Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: \"Quintet\", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in \"Forbidden Games\"; \"HealtH\", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; \"Popeye\", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; \"O.C. & Stiggs\", for its proposal of an anti-\"adolescents flick\"; \"Beyond Therapy\", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like \"The Dumb Waiter\" and \"The Laundromat\". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about \"The Gingerbread Man\", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike \"The Gingerbread Man\", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot \"Red Sorghum\", \"Ju Dou\" and \"Farewell My Concubine\". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his \"foreigner's gaze\", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4aa55b43ea334a36ba702644a6174ad6", "input": "Review: 1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection – Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it – they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger. The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly – no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7f2119872d74eb3b53f797278ab28e2", "input": "Review: Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and LanguageMy MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and LanguageMy Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7a1b679fd9a4af6bb8019066106818e", "input": "Review: I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of \"Byron\" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was \"mad bad and dangerous to know\", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.I think the BBC lost its nous with this one Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-fba31114e06a4c38b8407dfd429e6d68", "input": "Review: There's so many things to fall for in Aro Tolbukhin. En la mente del asesino (Inside the killer's mind), that it's very hard to talk about it without giving any kind of warning. Let's just say that this movie is like an exercise in cinema but really, really great done. It´s made with super 8, black and white shots, 35 milimeters, color, interviews, flashbacks. Aro Tolbukhin it´s like a movie made a documental or viceversa, which most peculiar aspect relays on the doubt that leaves you wondering, did he really ever existed? The movie follows the later life of an hungarian sailor that arrived in Guatemala, worked in a religious mission and then killed some people. An act for which he got caught and death penalty sentenced. The movie starts because some french documentalists got interested in this character so they interview him prior to his death. Nowadays, some more people got involved and make a deeper research of the character. The one we are witness of -the movie.For the main part in the history we are guided by a semi slow phase to go look inside Aro´s mind, mainly in order to decode why he did what he has done. Nevertheless, the important thing is that the filmmakers never gives us a sided point of view; they left the judging for all of us and even as we may understand his actions, we clearly never justify them. So, the first half is based upon recollecting information; later things turn into Aro's childhood, giving the movie such an incredible new force (even tough never got weak or boring).I don't mean -and don't want- to spoil anything; so the only thing left to say is that if by any chance you get this movie near you, believe me, the trip to see it is more than worthy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b7939e8a06a2459e91456f1de4f171e7", "input": "Review: This is the Neil Simon piece of work that got a lot of praises! \"The Odd Couple\" is a one of a kind gem that lingers within. You got Felix Ungar(Jack Lemmon); a hypochondriac, fussy neat-freak, and a big thorn in the side of his roommate, Oscar Madison(Walter Matthau); a total slob. These men have great jobs though. Felix is a news writer, and Oscar is a sports writer. Both of these men are divorced, Felix's wife is nearby, while Oscar's is on the other side of the U.S. (The West Coast). Well, what can you say? Two men living in one roof together without driving each other crazy, is impossible as well as improbable. It's a whole lot of laughs and a whole lot of fun. I liked the part where when those two British neighbors that speak to both gentlemen, and after Oscar kicked out Felix, he gets lucky and lives with them when he refused to have dinner with them the night earlier. It's about time that Felix needed to lighten up. I guess all neat-freaks neat to lighten up. They can be fussy, yet they should be patient as well. A very fun movie, and a nuevo classic. Neil Simon's \"The Odd Couple\" is a must see classic movie. 5 STARS! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5dace500ae0448287283ac0dda14018", "input": "Review: This is apparently the second remake of this film, having been filmed before in 1911 and 1918. And, in so many ways it reminds me of the later film, A YANK AT OXFORD. Both films concern a conceited blow-hard who arrives at one of the top schools in the world and both, ultimately, show the blow-hard slowly learning about teamwork and decency. In this film, William Haines is \"Tom Brown\" and his main rival, \"Bob\" is played by Frances X. Bushman. And, in a supporting role is Jack Pickford--always remembered as the brother of Mary. Of these three, Pickford comes off the best, as the sympathetic loser who becomes Tom's pal--he actually has a few decent scenes as well as a dramatic moment just before the Big Game! All the standard clichés are there and the movie, because it was done so many times before and since, offers few surprises. However, it is pleasant film and is enjoyable viewing.In my opinion, for a better silent college film, try Harold Lloyd's THE FRESHMAN--it's football scenes are frankly more exciting and Harold is far more likable and sympathetic than the annoying Tom Brown. THE FRESHMAN is probably the best college picture you can find from the era. Another reason why BROWN AT HARVARD is a lesser picture is that William Haines played essentially the same unlikable and bombastic character with the same plot again and again and again (such as in WESTPOINT and THE SMART SET, among others)--and if you've seen one of these films, you've seen them all. Well made, but certainly NOT original! And, because it is just a rehash of his other films, anyone giving the film a score of 10 is STRONGLY advised to see these other films.4/25/08==I just checked and saw this this small film was the highest rated film on IMDb from the 1920!! Talk about over-rated! There are dozens and dozens of better films--how this film got to be #1 is anyone's guess. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9cc96fb4edd4693bf9f3589a705c327", "input": "Review: Hollywood now has officially gone too far and I really hope that this travesty of a motion picture creates a genuine backlash against their crap machines, in spite of the good box office returns. If you are an industry person reading our comments looking for hints on what to do next, STOP. Stop making our TV shows into these repellent, stupid, money grubbing waste of time movies that suck. By doing so you are proving one thing: Hollywood is out of ideas, and going to see the movies they churn out only perpetuates the cycle of disgust. What's next -- You guys gonna go & ruin The Bionic Man??The film is just plain wrong, and manages to get the most stupid, simple fact of the show totally incorrect by forgetting (or ignoring) that Tom Wopat & John Schneider's Bo & Luke Duke were *REFORMED* moonshiners. They had been busted, learned their lesson, gone straight, and were there to help people and be good neighbors who just happened to shoot dynamite tipped arrows from hunting bows & drive like Steve McQueen. Denver Pyle's Uncle Jessie was also the moral center of the family, always insisting that the Boys do good, even at their own expense or embarrassment while he made sandwiches and coffee for when the chores were done. They always did the right thing and had a sort of earnest naiveté about them that was quite appealing. We wanted to be more like them than we were, sorta. My favorite gimmick from the show was how they always buckled their seat belts before roaring off, which was apparently too moral for this film.By transforming the Duke family into a pack of leering, wisecracking, criminally minded, redneck baiting, misogynistic losers the movie has no moral standpoint, where the show was all about how honest or incorruptible the Dukes were -- Are the Duke boys in this movie supposed to come off as good guys? I wanted to punch them both in the nose. They seem to have a lot of free time on their hands that could be spent doing chores back at the farm and end up pursuing less than noble ends, if not acting like a pair of 14 year old boys who haven't grown up. There should be no marijuana use, no gawking at buxom, nubile coeds & their breasts, no shenanigans involving the Brothers in da Hood. All of it looks like the work of a marketing consultant who took a poll at the mall of what 14 year old boys like to see in movies. The problem being that 14 year old boys cannot possibly remember the show, IMHO shouldn't be seeing this movie either, and the parents who might feel nostalgia for the show will be disgusted by what the writers, director & producers did to our collective memories just to part us from our money, which is exactly how I feel. What were they thinking???And boy did they *EVER* get Daisy wrong. Jessica Simpson all dolled up like a Pamela Anderson mall slut may be the only reason for anyone to see this disgrace, but you can service your needs just fine downloading some promotional stills of her, printing them up & pinning them to the wall in a restroom. She is hardly in the film at all (which is the movie's only saving grace), and the ten minutes or so they used her was STILL excessive. Catherine Bach's Daisy may have had the same kind of shorts, and long legs that make people feel funny just looking at her, but the Daisy she played was a *PERSON*. The pratfalls she elicited by simply being who she was had an almost natural ring to it. She remains one of the most outrageously sexy pop culture icons ever created but there was somebody at home. And most importantly she was a sweet, caring person who couldn't help it if the guys went Ga Ga over her.By contrast, Jessica Simpson appears phony, contrived, made up, costumed, posed, aloof, bored, out of place, and I don't think she even looks that great in the outfit. She doesn't look like a person but a plot device, conjured up during a deal with someone representing her agent. Ms. Simpson would be well advised to fire that person immediately and pretend like the whole thing never even happened. Whatever the joke was, she isn't in on it and is disgracefully exploited for T&A. If that's all she wants from her career, executive produce the sequel if only to ensure yourself enough screen time at least, because this effort was just pathetic.The bottom line is SKIP IT. For the cost of two tickets and a Slurpee to go you can pick up one of Warner Bros. excellent box set collections of the original shows on DVD and the entire family can watch them together. That was why it worked. The only real purpose I can see in the film might be it's future use as an interrogation tool at Guantanamo Bay. Twenty minutes of this & they'll be singing a choir.1/10, and I mean it. And STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THE BIONIC MAN, you schnooks. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-317e7d8ac5dc4eb3859930c2112ef937", "input": "Review: We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like \"A Stranger Among Us\" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c360bf83ef045b197d6092fc9ee4d61", "input": "Review: An excellent example of \"cowboy noir\", as it's been called, in which unemployed Michael (Nicolas Cage) loses out on a job because he insists on being honest (he's got a bum leg). With really nothing else he can do, he decides that for once he's going to lie. When he walks into a bar, and the owner Wayne (the late, great J.T. Walsh) mistakes him for a hit-man whom Wayne has hired to do in his sexy young wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle in fine form), Michael plays along and accepts Waynes' money. *Then* he goes to Suzanne and informs her of her husbands' intentions, and accepts *her* money to get rid of Wayne! If that didn't complicate things enough, the real hit-man, \"Lyle from Dallas\" (Dennis Hopper, in a perfect role for him) shows up and Michael is in even more trouble than before.\"Red Rock West\" gets a lot out of the locations. Director John Dahl, who co-wrote the script with his brother Rick, was smart in realizing the potential of a story set in a truly isolated small town that may have seen better days and in which the residents could be involved in any manner of schemes. It's also an amusing idea of the kind of trouble an honest person could get into if they decided to abandon their principles and give in to any level of temptation. It's an appreciably dark and twist-laden story with an assortment of main characters that are if not corrupt, have at least been morally compromised like Michael. The lighting by cinematographer Marc Reshovsky is superb in its moodiness; even the climax set in a graveyard lends a nice morbid quality to the whole thing. Even if the writing isn't particularly \"logical or credible\", the film has a nice way of intriguing the viewer and just drawing them right in.Cage does a good job in the lead, but his co-stars have a grand old time sinking their teeth into their meaty and greed-motivated characters. Hopper, Boyle, and Walsh are all fun to watch in these parts. Timothy Carhart and Dan Shor are fine as Walshs' deputies (in one especially good twist, Walsh is also the local sheriff), and there's an entertaining cameo role for country & western star Dwight Yoakam, who also graces the film with an enjoyable end credits tune.It's quite a good little film worth checking out. It moves forward at an impressive pace, and if nothing else is certainly never boring.8/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9cffeefa444443659b2f4d98b3a538ee", "input": "Review: Spoiler for anyone who is lucky enough to ever see this film (so not really spoiler after all). Saw this film when it was released and can still remember parts of it. It's all set in a small town in the west or what is left of that town. It more resembles a ghost town with few inhabitants. Among them a couple, where the wife is especially wicked. She lets her man die in the end of the film and leaves the town but has to cross the desert. We never know what happens to her next but just before she left her dying man shoots after her and deliberately does not hit her and instead the water supply. She is not aware of that soon she will be very thirsty. Mark Damon kills a couple of bad guys in a funny manor - but that's another story, which I don't remember too good. The remaining impression of the film was that it was one of the first times I saw a really wicked woman on film, who pretends to be anything but wicked - can't be compared with the witch in 'Snowwhite', who, in comparison is easy to find out. Very tight western with few main characters and still absorbing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-071c05f3c3fc479892bb84e24f63acf8", "input": "Review: Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-184aeed91f4241cb81cc8fbbc6c43dab", "input": "Review: The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.This film could've been called \"The Search for Jose Iturbi\" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years. The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that \"GI\" meant \"Get Iturbi\" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them \"ignorantly\" complimenting the other's music.If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews \"of the day\" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.Trout Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-413108c7c5a84f4d8ed3742e80d67478", "input": "Review: How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-653ae2613a3d42cd9ad54759fe5bccc9", "input": "Review: Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...etc etc etc....Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2283f4856ab34f2e8ff0922d0a7dc7e3", "input": "Review: My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say \"hey, being mentally disabled is funny.\" Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bfbd75ddbb9d41b8bc93b4e5a31a4c87", "input": "Review: My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-925ec4ea89244e95b8cc66868aadcec6", "input": "Review: The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them – of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this – This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character – Hauser, the killer with a heart – exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character – tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside – and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry – to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1a1788709c014b0881254e52b6bef05d", "input": "Review: he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-12b326bcce08417d9376845d6b4f10be", "input": "Review: Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior \"The Naked City\", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e57312886774fdeb28b85171f1b10ca", "input": "Review: A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in \"To Kill a Mockingbird\", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef2983be52d646e483c7fe9a82b7541b", "input": "Review: Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d454a8cfaaf84fc4af5ca888b4dab8e2", "input": "Review: A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f304fffa6a4a4a15ad3a17c1b55e5410", "input": "Review: Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan. Not too long and not too shabby.8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb77c5dd751747e681be61ffb29fe04d", "input": "Review: It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week. This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-41444aa15d9549b4afe64b8b5651f00c", "input": "Review: As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men – whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies – so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you – an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions …I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us – tetanus.4/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5479c3ae6bed4c0f8fa87df162bed7c6", "input": "Review: Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.The \"deeper\" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra (\"knowledge belongs to mankind\") represents.Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b46e7f4ddf0548ed82498c04605f1ca0", "input": "Review: Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing \"caution to the wind\" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant \"reminders\" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some \"emotion\" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.Perennial \"old man\" Ian Wolfe assays the role of \"Mr. Atoz,\" the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aed8934e73ef4d1b90e745f31dbfde47", "input": "Review: hi I'm from Taft California and i like this movie because it shows how us little town people love our sports football is the main thing in Taft and this movie shows just how important it is i personally think they should make another one but instead of actors use us kids to play the games well show you our determination we've beat Bakersfield every game for the past 6 years and since I'm a senior next year its my last chance and then its college we've had running backs lead the state and I'm next if you want to know me I'm kyle Taylor and i average seven to eight yards a carry and about five times a game ill break away on a 75 or around that yard run so check us out at our website and go to our sports page bye Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-77a764096f1447be899c2821d66db8cb", "input": "Review: You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ee14692d4d5d482abec3af720e4f9a43", "input": "Review: Michelle Rodriguez is the defining actress who could be the charging force for other actresses to look out for. She has the audacity to place herself in a rarely seen tough-girl role very early in her career (and pull it off), which is a feat that should be recognized. Although her later films pigeonhole her to that same role, this film was made for her ruggedness.Her character is a romanticized student/fighter/lover, struggling to overcome her disenchanted existence in the projects, which is a little overdone in film...but not by a girl. That aspect of this film isn't very original, but the story goes in depth when the heated relationships that this girl has to deal with come to a boil and her primal rage takes over.I haven't seen an actress take such an aggressive stance in movie-making yet, and I'm glad that she's getting that original twist out there in Hollywood. This film got a 7 from me because of the average story of ghetto youth, but it has such a great actress portraying a rarely-seen role in a minimal budget movie. Great work. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-482a9dea744e43a194d96518d9220116", "input": "Review: During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff6442438a254ed1adab02031c7392ff", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that you keep thinking about when you wake up the next morning. It will give you that warm, fuzzy feeling and leave you with a smile on your face.Sure, we get fed the typical stereotype characters and stories, but it does do the trick: Entertain.Being from Sweden and living in the US for quite sometime, it is funny how we react. \"The deadbeat husband is going to kill him\", \"She (Gabriella) is going to die and then there will be a heartbreaking larger-than-life ending\". We know how these things work, everything comes together at the end. And it did. The characters were somewhat simple, they were so elaborate that you didn't really think twice about it, nothing was really left for your own imagination. The closest would probably be Siv, she makes you ask yourself if she indeed was in love with Daniel, but that's about it.But the movie is beautiful, set in rural Norrland, the music is absolutely amazing and the characters are lovable. Michael Nyqvist is truly genius, with his crazy unique look and Frida Hallberg is charming and approachable. Maybe a little too nice.But most of all this movie makes you feel, and that is the most important thing. You cry, you laugh, you hate and you identify. I don't know about you guys, but that does not happen that often. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-adadc44eed1946cb95ff455d7ea77e8d", "input": "Review: I approached this film with low expectations but was very pleasantly surprised. It is very well done and it beats hands down the ballroom dancing movies of recent years, especially \"Strictly Ballroom\". While the music is nice and the dancing colourful, for me the movie is not about dancing. It is about the very Japanese institution that gives male office workers long commutes to work and free time after work for entertainment that does not involve their families. Here we have the man with the complete family and the large mortgage and a flagging zest for life. He is drawn to the attractive image of a young woman in a dance studio he passes during his commute and this leads him to try ballroom dancing. Also Japanese is the fact that the lecherous motives that initiated his new passion are made plain but somehow accepted, at least eventually, by family and audience. Attitudes to ballroom dancing, as conveyed in the film, are definitely non-Western, though the discipline and the music are clearly cultural imports to Japan. The cultural contrasts are thus intriguing. Even without the cultural insights, the colour, the dance and the enthusiasm of the players all make this a fun film to watch. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c00d2ce2f2d41d2ad810cee203f0440", "input": "Review: Curiously, Season 6 of the Columbo series contained only three episodes and there is very little evidence of quality in at least two of the scripts, based on this outing for the \"man-in-the-mac\" and also \"Fade into Murder\".Furthermore, it is not a coincidence that Peter S. Feibleman penned both the aforementioned scripts (incidentally he plays the part of the murdered security guard here).This adventure is very rarely compelling and many of the performers just look disinterested with the material. The story is rather weakly developed with some protracted periods of boring conversation.Columbo is also shadowed by a colleague here(similar to \"Last Salute to the Commodore\") but the entertainment value is minimal. To add to this, Celeste's Holm characterisation, which is intended to provide comedy, induces embarrassment rather than laughs.The script wavers off to deal with the family history and the murderess does enough to gift Columbo the case, though there is never a credible discussion relating to the motives of her crime.Ironically, what turns out to be, arguably, Columbo's worst adventure produces the funniest moment in the series. He quizzes a male hairdresser and has a haircut/manicure at the same time. The next 5 minutes are hilarious - it's just that Columbo's hair is so perfectly groomed, then he can't afford to pay the bill and then, when he makes enquiries at a jewellers he keeps glancing in the mirror to admire his hairstyle!Sadly, this is the only decent moment from a script that looks like it has been cobbled together in ten minutes. For Columbo completionists only. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1bdf92d9b974ee0a348363fa5db3c4a", "input": "Review: - Contains miner spoilers - I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as \"No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead\" is of movie quality.This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a80d68d0c0a747ec9fbbc33cf5408c57", "input": "Review: Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate \"And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!\" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in \"The Story of Jacob and Joseph\" and \"The Story of David\". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c839d44fe8bd48ddbd4d4301fa84b77f", "input": "Review: Here's the good news first. \"Spirit\" is the most visually incredible animated film in current home theater release. The artwork and effects are revolutionary, and I recommend that you give this movie a look by virtue of the visuals alone.And now for the bad news. I really mean it when I say that the animation is the only thing this movie has going for it. You may remember that \"Spirit\" got badly trounced by \"Lilo and Stitch\" last summer. The first person who argues that it was because Disney is more well-established and had better advertising can write me a four page long essay entitled \"Why 'Lilo and Stitch''s Script Didn't Stink\".For all the incredible new animation technology on display in \"Spirit\", the story is almost *astonishingly* dull. There is a lesson here, and (needless to say) it doesn't just apply to animated movies. You can have the most mind-blowing visual effects ever to grace the eyes of a mortal, but if your story is boring and, more importantly, we don't care about your characters, it's bad film-making. Simple as that. The animation is still mind-blowing; I just can't wait to see what somebody with more imagination does with it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1386dcc4b67e44f9843f648afd4ab4b8", "input": "Review: Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down \"depth charges\" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment. Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks \"What did I do wrong?\" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible. Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: \"Can you do this every day?\" Emory is forced to nod \"No\" and the manager asks: \"Then what were you trying to prove?\" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day \"We just spit in your eye.\" Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it. This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3ea32071abe4922aadb6fa6881be3c6", "input": "Review: The Return is one of those movies for that niche group of people who like movies that bore and confuse them at the same time. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a lame buisnesswoman who does not kill vampires or get naked at all throughout the movie. I was willing to put up with this, however I was not willing to put up with the worst editing ever combined with pointless flashbacks. At the end it turns out she crashes her car into herself when she was young. Or maybe I'm wrong and that was just a flashback. With this movie it's impossible to tell. Can you believe the same dude who made Army of Darkness produced this crap? A much better idea is to stay at home and watch Army of Darkness on Sci Fi channel. That movie had it all: sluts, zombies and a dude with a chainsaw for an arm. The Forgotten didn't even have one of these things. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0e286cc3ce67459cab3b82a787b4beba", "input": "Review: Throughout this film, you might think this film is just for kids. Well, it is mainly pointed towards them, but it's also well-rounded enough with the jokes pointed also at the adults in the audience. This time around, the Muppet gang try to get on Broadway, with the dire straits keeping them from getting it produced, leading them to splitting up. But Kermit won't stop, and his determination keeps things moving along until after getting the deal together he gets hit by a car and sent into amnesia! It's a send-up, in part, of those old starring vehicles from the 40s with musicals actually as the topic of a musical, only here there's the usual lot of zaniness and wonderful moments thrown into a pot of hysterically funny moments (Lou Zealand's boomerang fish; Gonzo's water-stunt display, the whisper campaign, among many others), but also with a lot of heart too. The Muppet writers aren't shy of the conventions, on the contrary, they embrace them to the point where it's almost refreshing to see such a 'lets put on a show' story where through thick and think the characters will meet their dream. While not as totally original in scope as the Muppet Movie, it's got many catchy and memorable songs, excellent locations all over Manhattan, and even some intonations of inter-species dating (and marriage)! Cameos include Liza Minneli (\"a frog?\"), Elliot Gould (as the cop), Brooke Shields (propositioned by a rat), Edward I. Koch, Gregory Hines and Joan Rivers. So get ready to sing-along, or just have a lot of big laughs and romantic (yes romantic) times with one of the best Muppet movies. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0765eb28758242c399deb8800632aa21", "input": "Review: I saw the movie with two grown children. Although it was not as clever as Shrek, I thought it was rather good. In a movie theatre surrounded by children who were on spring break, there was not a sound so I know the children all liked it. There parents also seemed engaged. The death and apparent death of characters brought about the appropriate gasps and comments. Hopefully people realize this movie was made for kids. As such, it was successful although I liked it too. Personally I liked the Scrat!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-433c089cbe9e4e05aa80791878aa4899", "input": "Review: I viewed the movie together with a homophobic friend, my wife and her female friend. So I had views from all kinds of directions. Mainly, the film made me laugh, the sexual tension was not really there and the only noticeable actors were Tudor Chirila and Maria Popistasu. Yes, I do think she played her role well, even if the script was not appropriate. There were good Romanian actors around, they just didn't have complex roles. I applaud Puya's entering the movie business. I don't know why, but I think he's a good guy, I just hope he'll be a good actor.The wife loved the movie, though, and I think there might have been chords being played and to which I had no ear for. If the film tried to present uncommon sexual behaviors and their consequences in todays Romania, then it failed miserably. There were no consequences. Just imagine that the girls are actually a boy and a girl, and the same story becomes just a boring, uninteresting plot.I have no idea why it got all those BAFTA awards. In my book, it should have gotten the \"Better luck next time\" award. (bafta=good luck in Romanian). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2108b409ffe2467a95cf3b2240e149f6", "input": "Review: A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9357d0adb63a4bed9e8f0f427bcc032b", "input": "Review: Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c52f69c229f494d87e3e2259ff38e91", "input": "Review: As has been well documented by previous posters, the real stars of Rockstar: INXS - and, indeed it's sequel, Rockstar: Supernova - are Paul Mirkovich, Rafael Moreira, Jim McGorman, Nate Morton and Sasha Krivtsov. Don't know who they are? They are the awesome, tight, rockin' House Band whose music savvy and talent made this show something more than a sad American Idol clone.Remember the \"strings\" night? That was musical precision and perfection if ever I've seen it. Suzie McNeil's epic rendition of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Ty Taylor's memorable cover of the Stones' 'You Can't Always Get...', JD Fortune singing \"Suspicious Minds\". The common denominator here is the awesome House Band.As good as INXS were in their prime, they are sadly a shadow of their former selves, though JD's live performance has somewhat breathed new life into their music, this show is all about the HB.Memo to producers: Season Three (if we're blessed enough to have it happen) should be Rockstar: House Band. Get those boys a good lead singer and they are going places. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a0c6266d44f74de18fadaa400a74cd42", "input": "Review: The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of \"A Bug's Life\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c434018c577743aab2e8adfa8c7e0dc3", "input": "Review: What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many \"song\" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a \"war is hell\" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-60671df540f94c298cd3e0f499e1a429", "input": "Review: Enterprise, the latest high budget spin-off to the most successful franchise in film and or television history opens to the tune of a 90-minute episode called 'Broken Bow'. First we are swept into a massive action sequence with a Klingon being chased by some Suliban (who are the main enemy in the first season of the show). From there the televised movie takes us on a journey that seldom gets as good as it is, with some of the best character development, story and action/visual effects ever seen in such a short amount of time.The opening-credits is a debatable subject among the minority of Enterprise fans, whom some believe that the song is out of place. What they fail to realise is the lyrics themselves. If one listens to the actual song, instead of the theme, then they will begin to piece the parts of the puzzle together. And eventually as the series progresses further and further, and we learn more about our valiant captain and his crew, will the song actually become meaningful. Overall Diane Warren's theme is beautifully orchestrated and is sung just as well by opera singer Russell Watson.What makes any television show watchable and worth watching time and time again is its characters and the way they become structured and layered. Enterprise is (in my opinion) one of the most well cast shows since The Next Generation. Choosing Scott Bakula, as Captain Jonathan Archer was the best decision since Gene himself cast Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. As the captain always leads the show, Bakula adds a subtlety to his role and brings a huge smile to the faces of anyone with blood pumping in their veins. He simply is (both actor wise and character wise) a superb human being and his charm, wit, and compassion are overwhelming to watch. As for the other cast members, a favourite of mine is John Billingsley who plays Dr. Phlox. It's also nice to see a non-human playing a role, and the decision to give the captain a dog, named 'Porthos' was a well-received idea. Throughout the show character development was brilliant, it was fast, well timed and almost perfect. I say almost because sadly Travis Mayweather's character played by the Briton Anthony Montgomery is a little weak at the end of the first season. He does have some things to say here and there, but remains in the hands of the producers to make him more important. Jolene Blalock is wonderful as the sometimes harsh but equally loveable Subcommander T'Pol. Dominic Keating as Lieutenant Malcolm Reed plays a strong role and is convincing as the armoury officer. Connor Trinneer plays Commander Charles \"Trip\" Tucker who always adds charm and comedic style to his character and finally Linda Park as Ensign Hoshi Sato, who often plays a weaker character but thankfully quickly becomes interesting. All of these characters make up Enterprise, and all bring a quality that Star Trek hasn't seen in a long time. Each person makes this show worth watching. Smiles and feel-good senses are guaranteed right from the first time we see them all together on the bridge of the starship Enterprise NX-01.The ship itself, the NX-01 is somewhat questionable in design. The series is set 150 years from now and 100 years before Captain Kirk. So why then does the ship appear to be similar in design to mid 24th century ships, namely the Akira class starship? Continuity has been an issue in Enterprise, but thankfully Rick [Berman] and Brannon [Braga] offer suitable explanations for each and everyone of them. Continuity is only a problem if you are forever scrutinising shows and are obsessed with the tiniest of details. If you see the show with and open mind, then you'll have no problems, but there is an urge to know 'why' all the time. So what did Berman and Braga offer to the Star Trek fan-base with the issue of the deign of the ship itself? According to them the NX-01 is how it is because of the incident in First Contact. When Zefram Cochrane saw the Enterprise-E through his telescope and from speaking with the away team lead by Commander Riker, it changed the ideas in his head. That's a good enough explanation for me.lets move on. Of course its not as easy for some fans to accept that sort of answer, some go as far as to refuse to see the show until they get a reasonable answer. Come on guys grow up.When George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars saga with the launch of his profit making new trilogy, fans couldn't do anything, only watch and sap it all up anyway. And then they learned that, well maybe its not that bad after all. If you can't accept a quality show for what it is, not what it should be in your mind, then go elsewhere. Or try becoming a producer on the show and then see what you can do.The sets on Enterprise remind me very much of the Defiant from Deep Space Nine. They often appear cold and have an eerie look of modern structure to them and they cry out that they belong to the military. Perhaps that why the crew of the USS Enterprise (aka flagship of the American fleet) like it so much. They are striking sets, and represent the show perfectly.Rick Berman 'the overlord of the empire' as John Logan so accurately put it and his counterpart Brannon Braga has hit the nail on the head exactly where they should have, and in all the right places. Whether that be technicalities, visuals, sound, editing or score. Enterprise is a fine demonstration to just how good televised science fiction can ultimately be, when in the hands of geniuses. The late Gene Roddenberry would be proud of this series and as a Star Trek fan, so should you. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9621da9081744cb9a3978efd4d6872ac", "input": "Review: This series was a cut above the rest of the TV detective series of the day but somehow didn't find an audience.The idea of a blind detective may not be totally new but added so much to the story. And who could forget Pax, the beautiful guide dog in the series!Whilst the stories themselves may have been no better than the average series, the settings , in New Orleans, the acting and the music (I note the comment about the music score in other comments ...I remember that clearly) all work to make a good television series even better!Well you never know ...one day Paramount might just dig into its archives and release it on DVD! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3598a9d4e2c745588d46bf4bcb769cc3", "input": "Review: I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was \"loose\". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e991117e788945e29c0c5505cb3e4149", "input": "Review: David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debut with `House of Games,' a character study fraught with psychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into the dark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, 'Driven.' Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the `House of Games,' a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the `twenty-five large' that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the `tell' of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a `tell' is and how it works, to the lessons of the `short con,' to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). `House of Games' is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under `Perfection.' This is one great movie you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-70456e25482e42268a40a0e8dc88acf1", "input": "Review: I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-baf54a2ed3f54e3fbb8c2f521e6ec5b5", "input": "Review: \"Bend It Like Beckham\" is a film that got very little exposure here in the United States. It was probably due to the fact that the movie was strongly British in dialogue and terminology and dealt a lot with football, (soccer here), which some may have trouble relating too in the U.S. It's unfortunate because this movie is absolutely fantastic and deserved much more coverage over here. I think the basis of the storyline, (following a dream), is something many people can relate to and in the end, \"Bend It Like Beckham\" proves to be a good-feeling film with a source of inspiration and really good acting. I was not overly excited about seeing this film initially but now I regret not seeing it sooner. I highly recommend this movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-47807fa51bf343f8bb51561333dd2c7e", "input": "Review: First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-017ea66a140d460399e3e53ede349b66", "input": "Review: After reading the first 5 reviews on IMDb I was very enthusiastic about this movie. But it's really an awful movie, the total time you see the alien is about 5 minutes (the rest of the movie is cheap suspense), the acting is over the top en the story, oh boy, which story?The story doesn't seem to go in a direction, first they capture the alien (after 7 years! they finally succeed), then they don't know what to do with it (after 7 years?) and even want to release it (why the hell did they capture it?). Then the girlfriend, who's acting is the most over the top, wants to walk away from this madness, then suddenly she doesn't, then again, she does and then she doesn't. Then they come to the conclusion that killing the alien will kill the whole human race (and remember, in all those years no other human have seen these permanently settled aliens) and what do they do? They torture it and blow a bunch of aliens to peaces.This is my first review on IMDb, I'm a very lazy person who doesn't write very soon, so listen to my warning: this move is not worth your time, don't watch this movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-04a2e03ce40d46e9b086bc5f1c8987f2", "input": "Review: Except for an awkward scene, this refreshing fairy tale fantasy has a fun and delightful undercurrent of adult cynical wit that charms its way into the audience as well as a soundtrack that powerfully moves this fairy epic along. Except for one of the Robert DeNiro scenes that doesn't come across smooth and appears out of sync with the tone of the rest of the movie, this luscious romantic fairy tail has a great storytelling feel and the strong magic and the fine balance between serious adventure scenes and the lighter spiritual humor is well done. In the updated tradition of THE PRINCESS BRIDE this contemporary presentation of magic and love is captivating. Eight out of Ten Stars. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-070745a0885649fa8ddc45f43a340e90", "input": "Review: The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2a13e34d06234e47a68e8b3cb4eb9be7", "input": "Review: Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those \"Carnosaurs\" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says \"What was that?\"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-689adb0213244ce28ba74af133a783ad", "input": "Review: There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fd2b5d5654c401fa22f407146412fff", "input": "Review: 9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry \"Dr. Giggles\" Drake) comes her way.If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c43656bf36d34156a9b7f7284ce0b101", "input": "Review: OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9d061623fe084ae29b034f8235f781df", "input": "Review: Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1bc06d5636e4660976436a2dca701ee", "input": "Review: Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur – even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.But it wouldn't be a ‘Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was ‘Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen – and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman – he was also ‘Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing – it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.Animation holds a special place in my heart – but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1ae5e88650e458bb42ea6d7da101d44", "input": "Review: Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cf3c3a32dad5488aad53c4ff412de335", "input": "Review: I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of \"riding giants,\" but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is \"Never surf/dive/swim by yourself.\" He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left. In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world. This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-62aac092fdfe4486aed682fc2154f90f", "input": "Review: The \"documentary\", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c03446f0dca445179e23b5b5aaba9d89", "input": "Review: Darius Goes West is a film depicting American belief that everything is possible if you try hard enough. This wonderful fun filled and sometimes heartbreaking film shows a young man who never expected, but longed to see, what was outside the confines of his lovely city of Athens, GA. Darius wished to see the ocean. His longtime friends Logan, Ben and several other good friends decided to make Darius' wish come true. They started small - Ben & Logan's mom started an email campaign to bring awareness to Darius' condition: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and to raise funds for the fellas to take Darius to not only see the ocean but to see these great United States. To say the young college buddies succeeded in bringing hope and awareness to this dreaded disease would be an understatement. They realized Darius' dream and then some. They put their lives on hold while showing love, care and tons of fun to Darius while helping Darius see how he can in turn show those same traits to others suffering from DMD. Darius went on to volunteer for the Red Cross - sitting in his chair collecting money (along with his buddies) outside a local grocery store. His wonderful smile tells the world that dreams do come true - all you need is hope and a group of college friends to support and care for you. Give Darius and all the guys an Oscar - no one else deserves it more. Martha Sweeney. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f4b6e2bdb51f4e9b9e9c745115a1507c", "input": "Review: This is a truly abysmal `LOCK STOCK' clone with a stellar cast and a terrible script. I have no idea why so many top British actors signed up to this junk, they must have been bribed. A miss match of a storyline goes on forever and ever and ever and if I hadn't have paid good money for it I'd have turned it off after 10 minutes. Not the worst film ive ever seen, that honour goes to the truly pathetic used bogroll of a ‘movie' (I use the term loosely) `GUMMO' (I feel like suing that so called `director' for the lost hour and a half of my life) but this trash is nearly right down there with it. Definitely one of the worst 5 films I have ever seen. Stuff like this reminds Hollywood that they don't have a monopoly on truly awful films. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ac52d3ec78c24779b52b2b3c4733f463", "input": "Review: Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple \"under the floor\" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's \"Deep Red\"(my highest recommendation; superb film), \"Opera\", or even \"Tenebre\". They're stronger in every category. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8eb3d704d314406eb6c4bdbf8cbe7eab", "input": "Review: I recently (May 2008) discovered that this childhood favorite was available as a DVD. Although I've seen a great deal of high quality movies since then (late 70's (I was 10 in 1978)), this three-episode, low budget thing still stands strong.What's fun is that I now watched it with my 10 year old daughter, and she experiences just the same as I remember from back then: The creepy music (she had to hold my hand, even though she's been raised with watching LotR and Resident Evil), the ever changing theories of who the culprit actually is, and also complaining about the theatrical voices from an era before Norway discovered the difference between stage acting and movie acting.This is the one and only good science fiction movie (or series) ever made in Norway. And it's still worth watching. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f82fdfd1264f42b9a406dd17224f4d98", "input": "Review: Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-049214ac3a2d45e3b1abe7278f6abf9a", "input": "Review: One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-42716205c6004d5ea4bb447f3104828c", "input": "Review: Within the first few minutes of this Dutch thriller, we learn that Krabbe is a gay alcoholic writer who sleeps sans underwear, fantasizes about murdering his roommate, tries to steal a magazine from a news stand, and lusts after a studly young man he meets at the train station. And he's the hero of this nonsensical movie that is all dressed up (except for Krabbe in at least one scene too many) but has nowhere to go. The basic plot is very simple but is dragged out to nearly two hours before reaching a pointless conclusion. Verhoeven has a nice visual flair but resorts to scenes of wild hallucinations, overt symbolism, and gratuitous gore when he runs out of ideas. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3fe70f1e0a448a9adeab402178bcc8c", "input": "Review: We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like \"A Stranger Among Us\" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ca8dc63e22e24257a82cf65dee88b46d", "input": "Review: Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total \"bomb\" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: \"I object!\" \"On what grounds?\" \"Coffee grounds!\"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e91f27e5ee5d432e9ab3f3a07387f117", "input": "Review: 11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges.... Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out. The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1c171dcc51646969cdb98e3d7b934cf", "input": "Review: Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-30936b25d0e0416fac7f27313cb385ff", "input": "Review: From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8c6b6187b5434a6aa0da6f73a6abb12c", "input": "Review: Paul Greengrass definitely saved the best Bourne for last! I've heard a lot of people complain about they way he filmed this movie, and some have even compared the camera style to the Blair Witch Project. All I have to say to that is...are you kidding me? Come on it was not that bad at all. I think it helps the action scenes to feel more realistic, which I would prefer over highly stylized stunt choreography. As for the rest of the movie I really didn't even notice it.You can tell that Damon has really gotten comfortable with the role of Jason Bourne. Sometimes that can be a bad thing, but in this case its a really good thing. He really becomes Jason Bourne in this installment. Damon also has a great supporting cast in Joan Allen, Ezra Kramer, and Julia Stiles. David Strathairn was a great addition to the cast, as he added more depth to the secret CIA organization.Even though the movie is filled with great car chases and nonstop action, they managed to stick a fair amount of character development in their with all of that going on. This film stands far above the other two Bourne movies, and is definitely one of the best movies of the 2007 summer season! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0c0f65766ad94dcaad929af5e121cee2", "input": "Review: Billy Wilder is co-credited for the story, and his unsentimental touch is noticeable in this quite original tale of ghostwriting songwriters who both work for burnt-out music legend Oliver Courtney. The obvious misunderstandings are gotten out of the way quite quickly, thank heaven, and what remains is a witty and breezy concoction with some fine songs (and some more forgettable ones), Crosby at his most charming, a great turn by Broadway legend Mary Martin and Basil Rathbone and Oscar Levant providing most of the cynical barbs (Levant is in rare form and his quips haven't dated at all). A delightful surprise, and recommended for all fans of the genre. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5d2836bde604d45ac41c9026a6d608d", "input": "Review: This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of \"southern\" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-72f9b8ad695a491c9e557053030e18d1", "input": "Review: it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9c037470ede14addb39438e9b540d97f", "input": "Review: Marvin(Rob Schneider)does not have the ingredients to be a cop which is his lifelong dream. But his luck changes when he has a car crush(a very bad one)and is found by a doctor. The doctor has to use animal organs to rebuild him. After this moment, he starts to have wild behaviours unconsciously and becomes a best cop one could ever be. By the time, he realises the changes and his animal instincts starts to take over his human side. In the mean time, he finds a lovely girl and try to be a perfect gentleman that means he has to control himself and behave civilised. I am not a big fun of Rob Schneider. In fact, this is the his first film I have seen. However, I can easily say that he is the best person to play the loser.(See his part in Ally Mcbeal, quite funny actually).There are some good parts in the movie such as his flirting with the goat. In such movies, the biggest problem is that the script is seems to make the viewer feel less intelligent. I am sure this movie is okay to watch as long as it is not taken too seriously. But very sad to see such films doing very good in the box office. The Animal is not the worst film I have seen to date but fails to get more than *. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6dac48f0d75f4024b8d1338f068e7657", "input": "Review: This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the \"special effects\" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a6a0fdcde6374af386165437cd10a845", "input": "Review: George and Kim are traveling with their young son Miles to a remote cabin in upstate New York when their car hits a deer and swerves into a ditch.But what seems to be a mere occurrence of misfortune marks the beginning of a terrifying journey,where myth becomes reality and a flesh-eating spirit,half animal and half man Wendigo,haunts a small town...\"Wendigo\" by Larry Fessenden is a thought-provoking horror film that often tenderfoot's into a somber family drama.The acting is great,the characters are well-developed and there are some bone-chilling moments.The subtle glimpses of Wendigo are handled effectively and it's never clear what is real and what is imagined,or even if the story is taking place entirely in Miles' head.Overall,\"Wendigo\" is my first contact with Larry Fessenden's work and surely won't be the last.Give this film a chance,if you don't mind watching something unconventional.8 out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-beac56b7305e4cccae69618a9d5301d8", "input": "Review: If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f49b57e235fe4446a0be5b380005dc7b", "input": "Review: As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3d5da188b42b45aaa5f1cb51e7b96c89", "input": "Review: In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like \"Empire of the Ants\", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ada403855f304bb88239017c07b3fc7e", "input": "Review: I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bdb1d6ee42374b32aa5ae97f53e9a058", "input": "Review: \"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition\" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-001a1a0be0154f12a11fad0345d87c0a", "input": "Review: Before I start, I _love_ Eddie Izzard. I think he's one of the funniest stand-ups around today. Possibly that means I'm going into this with too high expectations, but I just didn't find Eddie funny in this outing.I think the main problem is Eddie is trying too hard to be Eddie. Everyone knows him as a completely irrelevant comic, and we all love him for it. But in Circle, he appears to be going more for irrelevant than funny, and completely lost me in places. Many of the topics he covers he has covered before - I even think I recognised a few recycled jokes in there.If you buy the DVD you'll find a behind-the-scenes look at Eddie's tour (interesting in places, but not very funny), and a French language version of one of his shows. Die-hards will enjoy seeing Eddie in a different language, but subtitled comedy isn't very funny.If you're a fan of Eddie you've either got this already or you're going to buy it whatever I say. If you're just passing through, buy Glorious or Dressed to Kill - you won't be disappointed. With Circle, you probably will. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-3beb31226eca410ea13f3285b9bf9f2a", "input": "Review: The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-674fe2dabfa647069ef61eb1a4c99e61", "input": "Review: In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a3fc9826ba244a3a0047add14d72bc3", "input": "Review: or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it \"wishi-washi\"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.It simply doesn't work.The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.That's a big difference.This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting \"I spend a night with superman\". Warner Brothers, that's too much.Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9239e3280bdd4af9998c9899dfbfefde", "input": "Review: I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e0dd8599729b4fc2be8bc0a901a9852c", "input": "Review: This installment of Masters of Horror was terrible. Apparently, Mr. Carpenter needs to learn a thing or two about pacing and decent, plausible dialog. There were times when I literally shouted at the TV for something to happen. Maybe he thinks he building suspense, but Carpenter needs to trim back that overdone, over-simplified musical score of his (or his son's) and advance the action a little bit. How many times did the girl say, \"Oh no, I can't have this baby!\" and \"Oh, no here it comes\"? Carpenter takes elements from much, much better films (Assault on Precinct 13 and The Thing) and throws them in here as if we are supposed to acknowledge and appreciate his trademark style. What is lacking here is genuine suspense and energy. It's as though he's sleepwalking through the process of movie making. For better Carpenter films, stick to the tried and true classics-- The Thing, Halloween, and They Live. For better masters of horror episodes, check out my personal favorites: Family, Jenifer, and Dreams in the Witch House. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f0d12350814c41dcb8da2242371dafe0", "input": "Review: Thank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as \"Skate Fu\" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided at all costs. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-76e3cae6be6f4361a51992a325e66eaf", "input": "Review: Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7a10ab027b114f1c8ea8f7088d32061d", "input": "Review: \"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key\" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from \"State of Mind\".One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble \"whodunnit\" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular \"State of Mind\" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just \"placed in a box and locked away in a drawer\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0b22622f316a47e598878e333892d751", "input": "Review: I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-acc40c235c574917b97fb3464814032e", "input": "Review: 'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-82eccf55674c4a7d980c4089bb26a351", "input": "Review: Director Paul Verhoeven's American vehicles are of varied quality, but most of the films he made in his native country are indisputable masterworks. This is the story of alcoholic (and bi-sexual) writer who moves in with a beautiful rich and very strange woman. But the lady does not know that he is only interested in meeting the woman's handsome male lover. In the meantime, the writer is plagued with strange visions - at first they look like hallucinations triggered by alcohol abuse, but he soon begins to realize that he is actually experiencing some kind of premonitions. Fascinating Hitchcockian thriller, very original and provocative. I love films that make you think they are about something, but then you realize they are about something completely different. This is one of those movies; a thriller during the first half, and a quasi-religious surrealist saga during the second half. Very erotic, original and blasphemous, not for kids or people that go to church every Sunday. Great cinematography by future director Jan de Bont. Highly Reommended! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d18b23449521413cb9ec124d140a327b", "input": "Review: I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-166eed78d9734878bcbe968c1a479638", "input": "Review: Yes, this movie make me feel real horror, when i realized that i paid for it and spent more than 1 hour of my life trying to watch it. The bald guy just give me the impression of being a psycho - Junkie actor and the girl is the worst actress i ever seen . Believe me if you appreciate your time avoid this movie, i understand a movie requires money to be created and some movies do not have that money but that is no justification for a stupid plot and bad acting. I'm always supporting independent movies, when it deserves the support, but movies like this makes a bad name for this kind of movies. I'm still traumatized. I will not trust in any nice cover anymore. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ea5c807bd524793875c4231e2a942cc", "input": "Review: FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films . Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5a3c724b6cd54febaebf3d21691b6922", "input": "Review: Dear Readers,With High Expectations, Human Beings leave Earth to begin a new life in Space Colonies. However, The Allied Forces of the United Earth Sphere Alliance gain great military control over the colonies and soon seize one colony after another in the name of Justice and Peace...The year is After Colony 195. Operation Meteor. In a move to counter the Alliance's tyranny, Rebel Forces from several colonies send new arsenals to Earth disguised as Shooting Stars...However...The Alliance forces catch on...Gundam Wing is the most popular and most successful of the entire Gundam Series. With cutting-edge Anime animation, stunning action, amazing Mobile Suits, Breathtaking scripts, and some of the most unforgettable characters in Anime History.I'll try to explain the plot of Gundam Wing as best as possible. Earth has now colonized space, but the UESA forces have forcibly occupied them along with the help of the mysterious Elite Force OZ and their shadowy leaders, Treize Kushrenada and the Romefeller Foundation. Five pilots are sent to Earth piloting Mobile Suits with extraordinary power known as the Gundams. Pursued by the Mysterious Lieutenant Zechs Merquise, Treize's second-in-command, a young teenager named Relena, and the Alliance military, the Gundam pilots unleash hell upon Earth for the Freedom of the Colonies while all the while, a plot most sinister architected by Treize begins to start.Signed, The Constant DVD Collector Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0ea513ee3b70465682d903b5a99449a1", "input": "Review: In the Hollywood west those trail hands were a rough bunch who when they came to town, partied pretty hardy. After all trail driving was a lonely business back in the day before railroads got to all parts of the USA. The drovers who worked for trail boss Gil Favor as played by Eric Fleming were no different. But Fleming was a man of all business, he had a job to do and hired a top crew to do it. With the long run of Rawhide and the fact that the regulars stayed with it for the most part, we got to know all the drovers at some point. A some point story lines were focused around all of them, though the bulk were with Fleming and Clint Eastwood's character Rowdy Yates, the number 2 guy with the herd.Clint Eastwood's western image was molded by Rawhide, it's a shame that these are not shown more often. Probably because they were done in black and white. Had this been an NBC show, this would have been done in color like Bonanza and be running as often as those shows are. We'd get to see a lot more of a man who became a move legend.Ironically enough it was Eric Fleming who left the show before it closed to do films. He did a few them and was hoping the show would give him a bankable movie name. Sadly he was killed on a movie location doing an action film, drowned in a river. Had he lived he might have become a name like Eastwood's.Clint took over as trail boss in the last season and then the show completed its run. And he of course became the icon he is today and not just in the western genre.Rawhide was a tough western who had some tough guys in it. No frills in this one, these were working cowboys just doing a job and battling the elements and whatever situations they were thrown into every year.They really don't make television series like these any more. What a pity. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-472f8968c7b746bd834a3cdc9c38b245", "input": "Review: Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8a7e707e44c4e78b7ddfabdc78c180c", "input": "Review: I tend to like character-driven films. I also think Hope Davis turns in consistently good work, so I had high hopes for this movie. Those hopes were soon dashed.The main flaw with this movie is the direction. There are a lot of scenes that are daydream sequences. The movie makes frequent use of the Denis Leary character as the alter ego of the Campbell Scott character. It doesn't work for me at all. This would have worked better as a play than a movie.There are problems with the plot as well. It is important that the characters in a movie take a journey and end up in a place different from where they started. I didn't feel that the characters grew in the experiences portrayed in the movie.Finally, the editing wasn't well done, either. There was a very big sag in the middle of the movie that was exceptionally boring.Except for acting, which I felt was consistently strong, this movie failed in almost every aspect of cinema. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9bb5bb47d36f4e3b88fc80c3fb007f98", "input": "Review: Contrary to some people's summaries, the women depicted in the film are not geisha. They are oiran (prostitutes) living outside the most famous pleasure districts, and their lives and experiences represent the lives of a great number of Tokugawa era women. I can't say the stories were particularly enlightening, but their charm lies in just how typical they are. The themes are universal and everyday: love, friendship, and sacrifice.I did greatly enjoy the art direction and the acting. I felt like I was getting a glimpse of a time and place I can never otherwise glimpse. The actors, especially the 4 women who played the main oiran, were a thrill to watch. I'd only recommend this movie to people who want a taste of Japanese culture, or to those who enjoy quiet and emotional stories. It's a great example of both. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3996b2c55464948b61e6b994ff49544", "input": "Review: No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9b4c5c00d69d450e81b097f8d634f0c0", "input": "Review: I thought this was a very good movie. It would have been nice to have seen a little more into the movie about the 2 sisters knowing about each liking the same boy before he was killed off. I'm sure if the movie had been done this way there would have been a very different ending, that's why this made this move such a good movie. It shows that no matter what happens in your life with your siblings that you can always get thru it and that if it's 2 sisters dealing with a boy, (the same boy) that working thru the pain and hurt makes things to seem better and easier to work out between the 2 of them. It's nice to see love stories that have a terrible thing to happen in someone's life that you can still get thru it become even closer after its over. I really enjoyed watching this movie, and I still do now when it comes on. I seem to find myself watching it every time it comes on. It would have been nice if there would have been a part 2 for this movie, maybe having the older sister to come up and have his baby, this would really have made a great finish to the story since he died, this way it would keep him alive even though he's dead. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b2af91d9218e46e1a631f68b89f18468", "input": "Review: This, like Murder She Wrote, is one of those shows, that after a stressful day at school, I sit down in front of the TV, and watch. Why? Because I genuinely enjoy it, and it's a shame it's not on the air anymore. Dick Van Dyke is amazing as Dr Mark Sloan, a doctor-turned-detective, who with his son, solves murders. He is joined by a largely unknown but very competent supporting cast, namely his real-life son, Barry Van Dyke. Victoria Rowell is also good, but I noticed that every series her hairstyle changes. i also liked Scott Baio and Charlie Schlatter, but I particularly loved Michael Tucci as Norman, and was puzzled how he suddenly disappeared. This show is so entertaining,with great guest stars, it's a bit obvious at times, like Colombo, but in every episode, there is always something to chuckle about. In conclusion, a great series, with two thumbs up and a 10/10. Bethany Cox Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8e226caaaa584d8fbcb11636148e8741", "input": "Review: The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure. Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way aroundexcellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f8dc38a7488e4affa389ca6eb7ce56b1", "input": "Review: So i consider myself pretty big into the anime scene, with very few shows i simply WILL NOT WATCH.this show, however, i would recommend to anyone.Quite possibly the most Original series to date, it;s got just about everything i could ask for. A side story, so to speak, about an unconditional love that will NOT be admitted to, a very blatant comedy, and a very well put together voice acting cast (both Japanese and American translation).If not for the terribly funny aspect to it, it would be, just another anime.More or less, as i have noticed, a 'love it or hate it', very few people i have seen introduced to this series will end up with a distaste for it.Original to the core, with everything you could ask for in an afternoon, bet the house on this series. I'm ready to ASSURE you that you will enjoy it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-73a5a88d71974048954f70bcc27ec31c", "input": "Review: A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for? Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4c2521b717844079990559b9df36c297", "input": "Review: A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9568a73903ea41e8ba48bb1872c4a4cf", "input": "Review: Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more. So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9a1efcf0f23347ca8c4d7ce3816d59bf", "input": "Review: OK, this movie starts out like a cheesy Lifetime movie and doesn't get better till almost well through the movie. The script is full of 'cheese' and 'fluff' and cast is not well directed for the most part. For the first half of the movie the little girl grated on my nerves. I do not think this is one of her best acting jobs. The only reason I bought the movie is because it was on sale and had Ellen Burstyn in it. She's terrific but this is also not one of her best acting gigs. The story is based on true events and that helps the movie. Actually, I didn't even like the movie at first and was getting disgusted when I saw stills of the balloon traveling, I mean..let it get where it's suppose to go and be done with it! But all is forgiven by the time it does reach it's destination and the story comes to a close. If this doesn't bring a tear to your eye, nothing will! It's cheesy and predictable but also makes you feel good about the world again. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-69097427529d464fa36bef2dcb972088", "input": "Review: My, how the mighty have fallen. Kim Basinger is a great actress but she was definitely slumming when she took this role. This movie is bad for one reason in particular: lapses in logic. Its looks like one of those movies that would have been passable with all its plot holes if it had came out in the 80s and 90s but in 2008 it just looks real stupid. This is the worst thriller I've ever seen and I've seen The Bone Collector and Twisted.The story details Della(Kim Basinger)is just getting from buying gifts in a mall an is harassed by a gang of thugs that end up killing a cop that came to her aid. From then on she is chased by these idiotic goons through an abandoned street and she gets rid of them one by one with a toolbox full of tools.So many things are wrong with this movie. As I said this movie leaps over logic at every turn and with the exception of Kim Basinger, the acting is made-for-TV bad. Hell, this pseudo thriller is made-for-TV bad. The way she kills each of these politically correct thugs(1 Caucasian, 1 Hispanic, 1 Asian and 1 African American all coming together to stalk a Caucasian woman. Don't you just love America?)is laughable to a fault. The way she killed the Hispanic guy made me laugh hysterically. The sex scene with the main hoodlum was so out in left field that it make you shake your head in shame. I only recommend this to lovers of bad films and no one else. Anybody else especially Kim Basinger fans would do well not to own this flick. You don't want see an actress you respect in a film this bad now do you? Of course not. You were warned. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e9e25e0a1657424498bec328fe4b246b", "input": "Review: I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5caa62da08904351985227717581e7d4", "input": "Review: A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d3f2934922f400089eb2be5fb9cfee0", "input": "Review: \"I moved out here to get away from this kind of thing!\" The small town sheriff laments.\"This happens a lot in Chicago?\" His deputy asks.Well, no, not really. The plot is that a group of Martians mistake a Halloween Rebroadcast of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds as an account of a real Martian invasion, and conclude they need to get in on the action! What follows are a bunch of mishaps involving the Martian's haphazard attempts to conquer the town of \"Big Bean, IL\". Everyone concludes they are kids in really good costumes, except for the Sheriff's daughter and her friend, a kid in a duck suit.The Martians themselves are comical, and you get the impression they are no threat to anyone but themselves pretty early on. It's a fun family movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-52654c2b423a49c6b4723f17c37f3d8e", "input": "Review: This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-609d1b73c8ea4f8f9f073280af7b0189", "input": "Review: An excellent documentry. I personally remember this growing up in NYC in the early 80's. This movie is for anyone that wasn't around during that time period.This shows the one thing the African American Gay Underclass felt was solely theirs and the love and camadrie you see is real. The people are real and sadly few are still alive as this is being written. The balls are still held but not to the extent that they were in the the nineteen eighties. That time is gone forever. This is a good pre \"homo thug\" movie. When Queens were really proud to be extroverts. Goodbye to Storyville this is another era gone but greatly documented all hail film! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5268346d99c044239fad9d3719ef557b", "input": "Review: The words \"Swedish\" and \"Action movie\" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no \"ups\", just \"downs\". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the \"cool\" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.I rate this 4/10 for effort. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-86bee44df5f64726b5174daec3bdd2ec", "input": "Review: The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9ca3a54c1454f1cafc0996d402ba17e", "input": "Review: How viewers react to this new \"adaption\" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards \"special effects\" being the first and last word in how \"good\" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is...\"We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too.\"2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been \"born bad\". No, instead, this \"doctor\" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their \"insomnia\" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies \"some houses are just born bad\", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first \"victim\" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's \"history\")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no \"companion\", and there was no nursery. There was also no \"Grace\" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word \"house\" for \"movie\"!): \"This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!\" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c8ab3d252d044703bdb0046ed95f4756", "input": "Review: Perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that every joke needs to be followed with an insult at the people in the crowd that aren't laughing. If there's anybody who's insecure, it's a comedian who won't shut up about his audience.Then again, perhaps the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that he doesn't get off his free speech high horse. If you want to be funny, just make a joke, don't explain all the reasons why you're saving the American way with your failed attempts at generating laughter.Hmm... actually... the worst thing about Carlos Mencia's comedy is that it substitues meanspirited jabs at ethnicities for legitimate humor. Avoid this like the plague. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d78be8abaa264696a17996f57b5cff24", "input": "Review: There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and \"disturbing\" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-22df0e6aeb78464d92347542ffa4b10c", "input": "Review: I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c7809783dda47208289b23387d10a0b", "input": "Review: This is one of those movies that you keep thinking about when you wake up the next morning. It will give you that warm, fuzzy feeling and leave you with a smile on your face.Sure, we get fed the typical stereotype characters and stories, but it does do the trick: Entertain.Being from Sweden and living in the US for quite sometime, it is funny how we react. \"The deadbeat husband is going to kill him\", \"She (Gabriella) is going to die and then there will be a heartbreaking larger-than-life ending\". We know how these things work, everything comes together at the end. And it did. The characters were somewhat simple, they were so elaborate that you didn't really think twice about it, nothing was really left for your own imagination. The closest would probably be Siv, she makes you ask yourself if she indeed was in love with Daniel, but that's about it.But the movie is beautiful, set in rural Norrland, the music is absolutely amazing and the characters are lovable. Michael Nyqvist is truly genius, with his crazy unique look and Frida Hallberg is charming and approachable. Maybe a little too nice.But most of all this movie makes you feel, and that is the most important thing. You cry, you laugh, you hate and you identify. I don't know about you guys, but that does not happen that often. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-61e1f9a7b55e41b0b9eebc39f8ccb754", "input": "Review: Welcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching \"At Dawn they Sleep.\" The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL. Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as \"War of the Robots\" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of \"At dawn they sleep\" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer \"i have no idea what happened in this movie\"ness. \"Witches mountain\" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-795ff0ceebc04824954513aaf7c9c7b4", "input": "Review: This has to be one of the best movies to come out of HK in a long time, i was eagerly waiting to get my hands on this movie just looking at the title. Loads of fantastic actors in this show and i was particularly impressed with Sam Lee's impossibly believable insane behavior and Edison's portrayal of a killer machine, which totally reversed his normal idol image. i would definitely recommend to those looking for a stylish and action packed movie. However, i must warn you, this is also an equally depressing movie, as every character in the movie is in some kind of dead end and trouble of their own, and struggling to breathe. Makes you think about what is life about really. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd9050af1eac424f88e8cf2547f4e9ab", "input": "Review: I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0da1a7e4d41345e1a2f5b304edefbfe1", "input": "Review: I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d747bfa367d64c7eb1897cdf4511eaea", "input": "Review: A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for? Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d030a42c9294012a6f74571d66a8da6", "input": "Review: Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-42097d0318884114a789bbf3a1301f52", "input": "Review: Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his \"House of 1,000 Corpses\" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in \"The House of Seven Corpses,\" but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like \"Satan's School for Girls\" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with \"Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things\" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. \"The House of Seven Corpses\" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4f6dfc9b2a60461787498dc33a16a180", "input": "Review: This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f7819dcbc1c344909b13c5fb5ff5dbeb", "input": "Review: Roman Polanski is considered as one of the most important directors of our time, as the mind behind classics such as \"Rosemary's Baby\" and \"Chinatown\". Probably what makes Polanski's cinema a very interesting one is the fact that while he is capable of creating commercially attractive films such as the afore mentioned masterpieces, he is also fond of making low-key movies that are of a more personal nature. \"Le Locataire\", or \"The Tenant\", is one of those movies; a horror/suspense story about paranoia and obsession that is among his best works and probably among the best horror movies ever done.Polanski himself plays Telkovsky, a young man looking for an apartment in France. When he finally finds one, he discovers that it is empty because the previous tenant, Simone Choule, attempted to kill herself by jumping out of the window. After Simone dies of the injuries, Trelkovsky begins to become obsessed with her, to the point of believing that her death was caused by the rest of the tenants in the building.While sharing the same claustrophobic feeling of his other \"apartment-themed\" films (\"Repulsion & \"Rosemary's Baby\"); this film focuses on the bizarre conspiracy that may or may not be entirely in Trelkovsky's head, the catastrophic effects the paranoia has on his mind, and the bizarre obsession he has with the previous tenant.Trelkovsky's descend into darkness is portrayed perfectly by Polanski. While at first his performance seems odd and wooden, slowly one finds out that Polanski acts that way because Trelkovsky is meant to be acted that way; as a simpleton with almost no life, who traps himself in this maddening sub-world that happens to be inhabited by a collection of bizarre people. The supporting actors really gave life to the people in the building creating memorable characters that are very important for the success of the film.Also, the beautiful cinematography Polanski employs in the film helps to increase the feeling of isolation, and gives life to the beautiful building that serves as cage for Trelkovsky. The haunting images Polanski uses to convey the feeling of confusion and madness are of a supernatural beauty that makes them both frightening and attractive.If a flaw is to be found in the film, is that it is definitely a bit slow at first. this may sound like a turn-off but in fact the slow pace of the beginning works perfectly as it mimics Trelkovsky's own boring life and how gradually he enters a different realm. Also, the convoluted storyline is definitely not an easy one to understand due to the many complex layers it has. However, more than a flaw, it is a joy to face a thought-provoking plot like this one.While \"The Tenant\" may not be for everyone, those interested in psychological horror and surreal story lines will be pleased by the experience. \"Le Locataire\" is really one of Roman Polanksi's masterpieces. 10/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-105fce82e5e94a9d99ddc317f2a68106", "input": "Review: What would happened when a depressed cop works with a shrink on probation? May be a lot of fun... This movie set a benchmark in the action/comedy genre of the Argentinean cinema. Dearable characters, probable story and a pace that between laughs has some thrill. I recommended it for a pleasant time of entertaining. Peretti and Luque join their efforts to fight against a cold and daringly foe in a time when it's difficult to trust someone. This movie will surprise you, the other side of the coin of \"Analyze me\", but not alike, with nothing to envy. And if you like to know Bs.AS there where few scenes of downtown and the city center. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b40914c7021b43158f18baa51dfdbc19", "input": "Review: The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the wonderful cast. A ton of my favorite actors in one movie equals amazing with out actually seeing it. But this movie caught me off guard. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. It's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember I could not stop laughing!!! And it wasn't just the cast that did it for me. The script was amazingly written. Every time you were expecting something to happen it didn't happen. There were so many twists and turns but it fit with the whole tone of the movie instead of coming off as pretentious. The cinematography, along with the set, was absolutely beautiful as well. I really can't say anything bad about this movie! Expcept, I would have Andrew Davoli a little more screen time! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8452e125a3674132a8993c8e5bc4c035", "input": "Review: i thought this movie was really really great! Helena did an amazing job in it! I thought she played her character very well! she's an AWESOME actress!! :)the movie was also really funny too! The jokes were great! i couldnt stop laughing! :)i think everyone should see it... :) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-feb5bfbe4a5c47199e693844c77df909", "input": "Review: The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.' Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bd9118e315654306a56f7911c3871007", "input": "Review: I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the \"dress rehearsal\" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-961a6acf917646aea7be0fb223021e82", "input": "Review: This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab593c481c394cd781c0898d9925aac9", "input": "Review: To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the \"big waves\" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9923df92535f40659082c41e1f6c97a3", "input": "Review: in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-18e6d3445a2143c49b5d0b024049bc3c", "input": "Review: Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of \"An Inconvenient Truth.\" So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at \"An Inconvenient Truth\" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed \"global Warming\" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is \"getting warmer\" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a \"New Ice Age\". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed \"Global Warming.\" Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced \"An Inconvenient Truth\" were really honest, they would have titled their film \"Al Gore Wants Attention.\" But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled \"Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends.\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b44cbc1b387849d2a756c69192d28867", "input": "Review: Mind, my friends and I saw the movie based off it's title alone. It's cute, though obvious in it's plot and direction-- you know where the movie is going within the first five minutes. My main contention with the plot is that while it remains tolerably consistent, they never explain a lot of the things behind the characters. An alcoholic father, overworked mother, stressed-out sister... that's a bad family, but aside from the occasional mention from the sister, there's not any resolution. I was also confused as to the scene with the bottles... it seemed pretty random.The writing is a secondary concern... the kids weren't bad actors, but their script left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, what could have been a cute niche movie was pushed aside for a single, blah special effect, lame scripting, and a glaringly obvious plot. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a5f4442c683a4d26a320d4ba325771d4", "input": "Review: A remarkable piece of documentary, giving a vivid depiction of a country deeply divided within itself (for further evidence, check out some of the comments on IMDb...!). Compares extremely favourably with Oliver Stone's \"Comandante\" (which is mainly an in-depth examination of Fidel Castro's nostril hairs). I don't know whether Chavez is everything he presents himself as being, or yet another in the long line of populist Latin-American \"caudillos\". Nor do I know whether he will be able to make good on the huge expectations he has clearly built up among the poor majority of Venezuelans. It's hardly reasonable to expect a film like this to be able to answer such questions - but I've certainly now got a pretty vivid idea of what's at stake, and what it feels like to be caught up in the middle of a coup. Someone says in the film \"we're making history\", and that's exactly what the film feels like it's capturing. Outstanding stuff. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7149f8c9b4eb4cc4885a085a6ba815aa", "input": "Review: James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play co-workers in a Budapest gift shop who don't really like each other, not knowing they're really sweetheart pen pals who have yet to meet.A very charming romantic comedy, very engagingly played by it's two likable stars and a very eager-to-please supporting cast. The story is well written and the film has that romantic innocence (don't quite know how to explain it) that films today just don't have. This can obviously be compared to the recent You've Got Mail, and the original wins in every way.This is mandatory viewing each Christmas, I can't think of a better way to jumpstart a Christmas feel than this little gem. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cef5f34a471b4602be730dc8380e4b47", "input": "Review: I don't hand out ten star ratings easily. A movie really has to impress me, and The Bourne Ultimatum has gone far beyond that. Furthermore, this trilogy has come together so nicely, that I believe it to be one of the greatest motion picture trilogies of our time. Though all three films could not be any more different from the Ludlum novels, they still stand as a powerful landmark in cinematic achievement. The Bourne Ultimatum made me want to cry that the series was complete, yet I could not even attempt to stop smiling for hours.From the moment that the opening title appeared, I knew we were in for a ride. Paul Greengrass has done it again. Everything we love from the previous Bourne films is here once again: the action, the dialogue, and of course the shaky camera. However for me, that last one was never a problem. I think it adds to the suspense.I will be back to see this film several times before it is released on DVD, simply because it is genius. It is a perfectly satisfying conclusion, and should stand the test of time as a fantastic movie, and altogether, an unforgettable trilogy. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4e4214c52ba042bca601e3ba10339054", "input": "Review: This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an \"Igor\"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in \"Kleinschloss\" (\"little castle\"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43dea29e947c433e93f9e25bc09bb133", "input": "Review: I guess this goes to prove that Joe Don Baker will do anything for a buck. The concept of the film wasn't very good to start with. This movie has so many bad things about it I don't know where to start. The acting is horrible. The cinematography is marginal at best. The soundtrack was pretty bad. The score is terrible. There's a reason why this movie ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I voted before I wrote this and I cannot believe that 9 people actually thought this \"film\" is excellent. They must have liked the two go-go dancers. Final justice would be if they locked this stinker in the film vault outside Wichita and never let anyone see it again! A 1 out of 10 rating is far better than this deserves. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d5bff7404aa341d2b1ad090b5aeccaba", "input": "Review: Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a \"parody\" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato \"slides\" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a8e007a3a65741958d016409f192cfe9", "input": "Review: Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances. Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name \"Brotherly love\". \"Country dance\" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb30aadfe4434f7ab47d7922b050c3f9", "input": "Review: \"El Mar\" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.\"El Mar\" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ae9912734974ecf85124ffb9d66f746", "input": "Review: I do find it a bit overrated. Maybe it's just because I've never seen a subtitled version (dubbing stinks!), but I just don't get into it like a lot of other people do. The finale is really great though as Jackie trashes a mall, a scene that plays in my head every time i go shopping! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-52113026d2e5472c8176e3d52edaf2e5", "input": "Review: When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie \"Darkness Falls\", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the \"Nightmare on Elm Street\" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4d4565238ec3474283096f1c373e968a", "input": "Review: Got to this show late - believe it was the 3rd, and final episode, when first watched it - and was blown away by a social commentary that hasn't been seen on American TV since 'All in the Family'.Was very surprised CBS would even run this in the first place.Which is merely to say the last time CBS 'had a set' - if you know what I mean - was back in the day of 'All in the Family'. The most controversial decision they're willing to tackle today is how much eye make-up to put on Katie Couric.If you want to make a bunch of folks really, really mad - let them discover the truth about themselves. And if you want them willing to pull strings, make calls, and get a work of Art removed - let them discover that truth by hearing their own words spoken from their own mouths.The Aardman folks have always been WAY ahead of the curve. And this show is no different. Somehow it snuck under the CBS 'corporate/social/political/censor radar' to get it onto the schedule (perhaps the 'big brass' never really watched it till it finally aired?), but once good 'ol middle 'merika heard and saw themselves being themselves - well, can bet the farm that message, or the messenger, won't last long.Now, if only the 'missing episodes' can find their way onto Usenet or bit-torrent ;-)Thank You BC Kelly Tallahassee Fla Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e24082fd64a04503928497166bcdb427", "input": "Review: OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e85e1c6413d4a4282e02bf26ba3910a", "input": "Review: \"Xizao\", is the tale about the clash of modern life and ancient traditions, and its effects on a family in China. Da Ming (Quanxiu Pu), is a businessman who returns home when a letter sent by his brother Er Ming (Wu Jiang) makes him believe that his father Liu (Xu Zhu), has died. He founds that his father is still alive, as well as his old neighborhood and his father old business, the public bathroom.The movie centers around Da Ming's family, and how he has to learn the importance of his father's job, something he always had considered an old tradition that had to die soon. Also, the movie explores his relationship with Er Ming, who is mentally challenged, and the problems of the small community and how the bathroom is a place that purifies not only their bodies, but also their souls.The two main themes of the movie, the family and the problems of progress, are incredibly well handled, and the movie never loses the point it is trying to make, both themes are very good developed and we get a glimpse of Chinese society and customs.The director, Yang Zhang, tells his tale in a simple way, letting the characters characters do the job. It is a very simple approach, but it fits the movie perfectly, and I highly doubt that another style would fit the movie this good. Zhang has enormous potential, as he can tell a story without the aid of visual flare or camera tricks.The acting is outstanding in its naturalistic approach, everyone acts in a very natural way and it almost looks as if they were real persons being filmed. The three lead characters give remarkable performances, and Wu Jiang as Er Ming surely steals the show.Even when the movie could had sticked to a patronizing \"old days were much better\" message, instead it takes an attitude of equilibrium, like saying that progress is good, and we must move on, but we must not forget where we came from, and keep an equilibrium between modern life and the traditions of old.An awesome, and touching film. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-0fafebb68a26416ab4714c73ea1d19a5", "input": "Review: A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play. Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-21be9cb232114381b07508ddfc33b7c4", "input": "Review: It does come out of left field, and REALLY isn't what you're expecting. But I love that. The most memorable movie experiences come from being surprised, if you ask me. If you haven't been tipped off about the mysterious \"thing\" that makes these brothers so odd...you're in for a treat.The cast is fantastic, but not stretching so much that it's palpable. The special effects come out of nowhere (seriously, it's like an oddly dark romantic comedy until they do -- then WOW) and they're great. The overall cinematography is easy on the eyes, the editing and sound are very good quality, and the twisted story unfolds without clichés. While none of these aspects individually make it a blockbuster, the \"what the hell?\" factor ALONE makes it a film treasure.The people who bash this movie make no sense. It's one of those often-overlooked flicks of the 90's that you've either never heard of, or love so much you jump at the mention of its title.I'm in the latter group. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6c9400e85cd74c5989c232552dc7163f", "input": "Review: I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f276fb87bf7247f5823298d8572de996", "input": "Review: What made the French Connection work so well was the relationship between Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Scheider). In this catastrophe directed by Frankenheimer (who also brought us such gems as Raindeer Games and the Island of Dr. Moreau) the movie focuses on Doyle and his singular obsession of capturing Charnier (Rey). The fictitious idea that the NYPD would allow Doyle to travel to Marseilles to find Charnier with the help of the French local authorities is laugh out loud funny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charnier skip town with 65 pounds of pure smack!!! A street value of 32 million but yeah, let's send Doyle to find this guy, it was his pinch after all. Please!!! The story was weak. The acting was terrible (with the lone exception of Hackman, who completely overplayed his part). The direction was all over the place. Even the cuts between scenes were terrible. Do yourself a favor and watch the first installment twice and skip this one. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-30a8c595791540e4b0e85a20f213b50c", "input": "Review: I bought this at tower records after seeing the info-mercial about fifteen hundred times on comedy central. I was actually really looking forward to watching this. My god where did i go wrong? Now before i give my review let me just say that i am a person who can pretty much find the good in all movies, hell i own over 1,500 dvd's! With that said, the underground comedy movie ranks up there with the worst film i have EVER seen. I tried to give it a chance, but not only was it not funny. It had no point, did not offend what-so-ever and was all around stupid. God who in their right mind thought these pieces of crap were funny? this is going right to the bottom of the bin... Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7aa69e3d17384790b800beaf622fa8e0", "input": "Review: This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.For some, it seems, this \"modernization\" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed \"significance.\" The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. \"It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain.\" Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-296b71c4a1c640cb8ffb287f8ddf7811", "input": "Review: I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.I would have voted \"1\" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-28a551aa585f4f6fbd3e0d362e64b56e", "input": "Review: Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b6915018cf44f4aabd10c24874d4206", "input": "Review: The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd1ccfb3e0614b56ae3fa9e2a319bb24", "input": "Review: A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.\"The Blob\" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): \"A Bolha\" (\"The Blob\") Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c4a5694ff0d343b784ff9db7afd60108", "input": "Review: Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the \"He did it\" zone.There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-cd4d08ca11e347ea8f31aa2fb7ed288c", "input": "Review: There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fcd8f5cff2e04228ae0d8efb2b0ab811", "input": "Review: I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-125ace0cfb1340c2880d9f132deeb920", "input": "Review: I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing \"Return to Paradise,\" which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from \"Return to Paradise.\" Maybe I was expecting too much. On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying. I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tensionThe best thing about this film is the \"tragic\" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.3/10 Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-74e7467438e443b4ab57026cc79c53dc", "input": "Review: Though I like E.E. \"Doc\" Smith's books and David A. Kyles books of Lensman, the anime, which is loosly based on the books, is quite a fun and somewhat innovative fair.Though the story may seem familiar to Sci-Fi/Fantasy buffs, such as some kid on an isolated planet inherits mystical powers and avenges the death of his family, it is quite an entertaining one nonetheless. Plus, Lensman was THE first Animated motion picture to use hand drawn and CG animation all at once. Sure, it may look a bit outdated now, but it is still an innovation. If it were not for Lensman, none of that would have ever happened (personally, I think Computer Graphics look better in animation that live action.)Too bad they only released it on DVD/VCD in a few countries in the worls (mostly on formats that are quite foreign and different). I just wish they release the Lensman movie and tv series on DVD/VCD in EVERY part of the world, not just certain parts.P.S. Worsel rules! I just think he is so amazing and neat looking as well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ff5f306171cb4a579c22cfd445a77df5", "input": "Review: I have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song \"My Boyfriend's Back.\" If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec26c5460ce840e0b6616056565afee1", "input": "Review: There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and \"disturbing\" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2d24f69a7804c4c84c26fae5a0a8751", "input": "Review: I happen to like Leslie Howard, in his better films. Yet, for some reason, his performance in OF HUMAN BONDAGE never has moved me tremendously. I first saw the film on my college campus in 1972 and the reviewer in the college newspaper made the comment that in the 1930s and 1940s Howard played the roles supposedly later picked up by Dirk Bogard as the man who was born to be betrayed. This is not usually the case (off hand I think of Ashley Wilkes as a man who might be betrayed, if he and Scarlett O'Hara were meant to be an item by Margaret Mitchell - but Ashley loved Melonie, not Scarlett). Howard could play any type, and a role like R. J. Mitchell or Professor Henry Higgins is not one who is betrayed.*(*One can make the case that Philip Armstrong Scott is betrayed by the two strangers he shows hospitality to in 49TH PARALLEL, but they are Nazis who consider him - a liberal, westerner, Canadian - fair game to double cross in wartime. It isn't the same as emotional betrayal, and Howard does not shrivel up as a result, but faces the Nazis and captures one after beating him up.) I think what the reviewer meant was that Howard could be soulful - or try to be soulful. Witness his poet - dreamer - wanderer in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. But that character was not betrayed, except by history perhaps (as he feels his type is as out of date as the gangster played by Humphrey Bogart). The character of Philip Carey in Somerset Maugham's OF HUMAN BONDAGE is soulful too. He is sensitive for several reasons. He has an interest in art and tries to become a painter - but unlike the artist Strickland in THE MOON AND SIXPENCE he has no real talent. So he decides to concentrate on medical studies, accentuated by a club foot condition he has. Here he is a man with low self-esteem who is set up to be betrayed.Philip finds that betrayal in the form of Mildred a Cockney waitress (Bette Davis) who is mercenary and as selfish as they come. Why Philip falls for her is not really addressed in the film, but he does find the woman fascinating. And she finds him an easy meal ticket. Ironically in being so captivated by this slut, Philip fails to notice two other women who are interested in him (Kay Johnson and Frances Dee), and are more fit to be his mate. He also keeps finding himself forgiving Davis when she has affairs with other men (Alan Hale and Reginald Denny - the latter a friend of Howard's). Although Howard's performance captures the doormat tendency of Philip towards Mildred, he really does not show enough passion (until late in the movie, when he turns on her). That is why I find I never cared for his performance here - it lacks any reality. His later tortured insistence in GONE WITH THE WIND that he loves Olivia De Haviland, not Vivian Leigh, has more consistency with a man in love. But the performance of Davis as Mildred makes the film important. She had a wide variety of parts up to 1934, like the girlfriend of the deaf pianist in THE MAN WHO PLAYED GOD or the spoiled heiress who gets murdered in FOG OVER FRISCO or the mouse-like secretary in THREE ON A MATCH. As Mildred she finally showed she could be a major actress by playing a selfish bitch.Curiously her performance was not all of one note. While she uses and abuses Howard for two thirds of the film, culminating in that famous scene where she shows how disgusted his kissing of her made her, her last scenes show she too could fall apart due to her health deteriorating, and her inability to keep any honest jobs. When Howard rejects her the viewers fail to note how equally vicious he becomes (he asks what happened to her baby - she tells him the baby died and Howard says brusquely that he is glad, which is hardly the response she expects). In the end Howard does finally get his life in order, but Mildred ends a casualty (ironically her death discovered by her old boyfriend Denny on a medical call). The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences did fail to nominate Davis in 1934 (leading to the largest write - in campaign in it's history, and a permanent change in it's rules), but Davis was established as a star. In one year she won the Oscar as Joyce Heth in DANGEROUS. And in two years she co-starred with Howard again (as equal stars) in THE PETRIFIED FORREST. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d729008d7d9442b0b930dc934efeb454", "input": "Review: I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.Okay, here's some criticism.1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5d5bf4664211410085d12c0054e448b1", "input": "Review: This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes \"The Attack of the Monolith Monsters.\" This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7e1062d77194ef2a289feafacfbb131", "input": "Review: Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a \"romance\" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so \"fake\" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d72fa6d0e33e429094d9f3a9a88e02fa", "input": "Review: A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance. I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their \"selective memories\" and \"selective vision\". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ec6e2126af6f4a929ebd581550154bfc", "input": "Review: This docu-drama is what you would expect from Richard Attenborough, the man who gave us \"Gandhi\": beautifully photographed, compellingly casted, well written in the measured, literate manner that Hollywood discarded in the 30's, and scrupulously accurate. It stands out as a genre film, excelling in its portrayal of native American (or, more appropriately for its Canadian setting, \"First Nations\") culture and standing with \"Black Robe\" as a wonderfully photographed piece of Canoe Country and its culture (here, circa 1934). This idyllic portrait derives drama from its subject: Archie \"Grey Owl\" Belaney, a Scot raised in Hastings (England) by maiden aunts who became so obsessed with the \"red indian\" tales of his childhood that he went to Canada, disappeared into the woods, and became a trapper and adopted son of an Ojibway band. He was a vain man with a habit of marrying and abandoningIndian brides, none of whom seem to have thought less of him for it, for he was also an extraordinarily charming and picaresque character. One of his wives (one smarter than he, by most accounts) propelled him into fame as a writer and early advocate for protecting the wild country of the North, and this forms the focus of Attenborough's tale. The chemistry between Brosnan and Annie Galipeau (as Grey Owl's wife Pony) is engaging and, if not firey, is nonetheless quite touching. A good film when you need some time from the madding crowd. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b79aef4306ce47e2af96da20540f3bc6", "input": "Review: `Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary – and inferior – but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. – knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4dbace2e6e2349faaa78bd557ff3bab5", "input": "Review: I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen. As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary! I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created! Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper \"witch-like\" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed? I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d9d2a2850f5e49fcab323aae7305183d", "input": "Review: One previous reviewer called this film \"pure visual joy\" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. \"High Art\" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since \"Seven\". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f1991c754c5646319a0a883300c4a700", "input": "Review: The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ab0b884dad9f4715896a566c6be76f04", "input": "Review: This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0a0f3ea89b7c4cb0a6b26b4e10ae24b9", "input": "Review: Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it. To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-43360ce275ca4129a06afc44dc9446b9", "input": "Review: This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the \"red-neck riviera\" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of \"Ulee's Gold\" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-c607a4c2151f4201b77a6d4251725790", "input": "Review: When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth \"several thousand million years ago.\" In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call \"Radium X\" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e9f061021c647a2ba3630f554ac6951", "input": "Review: \"Welcome to Collingwood\" offers some of the most hilarious dialog in recent memory. Watching this comedy directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo reminded us of maybe another film we had seen in the past, but since we missed the opening credits, we had to wait until the end to discover that what we were reminded of, was the 1958 Italian film \"Big Deal on Madonna Street\", directed by Mario Monicelli.The Russo brothers put together a magnificent cast to portray all the characters in the film. Anything with William H. Macy, Luis Guzman, Sam Rockwell, Patricia Clarkson, the late Michael Jeter, in it, can't be bad. Since this is an ensemble piece all characters get an opportunity in which to shine.The film presents us a group of inane would-be safe crackers from hell. No one could think these men could carry on a job like the one they undertake. Whatever could go wrong, and more, is what they succeed in doing. George Clooney makes a small appearance as the master safe cracker who is also seen impersonating a rabbi, only to be confused with a priest by the gang members coming out of Cossimo's funeral.The best way to enjoy the movie is to sit back and relax, and let all these small time crooks do their thing. Let their funny lines make you laugh, as anyone can see this gang is doomed from beginning to end! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce1778d7d44c49d3af742826b985a5a6", "input": "Review: very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b431b4082b5043f3a2b2cccd48babb9a", "input": "Review: Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on \"something that has had a great effect\". \"La Maman et La Putain\" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: \"Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry.\" And by that I don't mean \"sick and angry\" about \"the human condition\" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - \"an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty\" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like \"un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray\", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his \"anxiety\" and his \"despair\". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if \"La Maman et La Putain\" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being \"unflinching\" (though why one should even feel like \"flinching\" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch \"La Maman et La Putain\" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d76395e38f394530b63867abc6b5b98f", "input": "Review: I was up late flipping cable channels one night and ran into this movie from about 10 minutes into the start - every time I even thought going to bed, something kept on telling me to keep on watching it even though it was way way way past my bedtime.This movie could have been another easy slam dunk anti-gun film, but instead they chose to examine the aftereffects of the shootings. And even better, the movie kept on with the real life - just when you think they are going to take the easy and obviously contrived way out, a twist comes along and changes the whole outlook of the movie. This film not only doesn't follow the formula, it shows how other events often lead up to and/or affect what happens afterwards.I only wish the filmmakers had explored the issues around anti-depressant drugs more - the kids from Columnbine who did the shootings were on them for years and it was frightening to watch the way Deanna popped them every time the nightmares started. Up until recently they were dispensing the stuff like candy and only now do they even begin to understand what long term effects the drugs have. It was very refreshing to see that the mental illness aspect of the story was given quite a bit of film, having a relative who suffers from a mental illness, I can say that the movie was dead nuts on in every aspect of mental illnesses. Bravo to the director and writer who obviously did their homework on those issues. And for those who think certain things couldn't happen in a hospital (I don't want to tell any particulars), you're dead wrong on that too - I've been there. The script was so real it was amazing.Go BUY this film and show it to your teenage kids before it's too late. Someday they'll thank you for it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-b1558ceda8314d718efde33e7a012413", "input": "Review: Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. To think...this is the film that beat out \"A Streetcar Named Desire\" and \"A Place in the Sun\" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, \"The African Queen\" and \"Ace in the Hole\" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that \"Ace in the Hole\" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though \"An American in Paris\" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cace23cbf26a48acb02abafa04b2b087", "input": "Review: If you fast forward through the horrible singing, you will find a classic fairy tale underneath. Christopher Walken is very humorous and surprisingly good in the role. His trademark style of acting works well for the sly Puss in Boots. The other actors are well for their parts. I did not find any of the acting terribly fake or awkward. The king in particular appears a real dunce though, and I wonder if he is supposed to be. I can not remember the original tale. The special effects are typical of the eighties, but at least they are not overly fake like some of the computer generated fare that we see today. Overall, I recommend this movie for children and adults who are a child at heart. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-be0df4947bf9414fbf136b6fbe6dd30e", "input": "Review: Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange. I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5e8318de176c4e7c956d4fd6a5cc5640", "input": "Review: This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8b72038c7e0c4543b1058ff79c3650f6", "input": "Review: I like my Ronald Colman dashing and debonair, the fellow you see in such films as If I Were King and Kismet. I like him as the epitome of civilization as in The Lost Horrizon and Random Harvest. A brooding Colman isn't a favorite of mine.But in A Double Life precisely because his part as actor Anthony John is so offbeat for him, Colman was recognized with a Best Actor Oscar for 1947. It became his best known part.Colman is an actor who really does take the Method quite seriously. He's just finished a successful run in a comedy of manners and he's quite the jovial fellow. For a change of pace now that that play has concluded its Broadway run, Colman is bringing a revival of Othello to New York. About as opposite a part as you can get.His leading lady in both is his former wife Signe Hasso who loves him dearly, but can't take his change of moods when he's at work. Colman loves her dearly as well and wants her back. But he's heading for a mental breakdown when he starts confusing himself with the jealous Moor Othello and Hasso with her role as Desdemona.Unfortunately Shelley Winters as a poor waitress who a depressed Colman picks up gets in the way of his madness and she winds up like poor Desdemona in the play. Killed in the same manner and now it's a matter for homicide cop Joe Sawyer.Colman's performance is so good that one does kind of wonder is this an occupational hazard with actors? I'd shudder to think so, were there any unsolved homicides in or around Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles then they essayed Othello. I could never quite buy the story for that reason, but I certainly do applaud Ronald Colman and what he did with the part. I'm sure there was a tinge of regret in him winning the Oscar though because one of the other nominees was his good friend William Powell for Life With Father. Others in the running that year were Gregory Peck for Gentlemen's Agreement, John Garfield for Body and Soul, and Michael Redgrave for Mourning Becomes Electra.Colman gets able support from the rest of the cast including Edmond O'Brien who finds himself in the unwanted part of Cassio in Colman's jealous fantasy. Still you will find no Iago equivalent in A Double Life, no one prodding the jealousy, it's all in his own mind.And that from one of the most cultivated and civilized minds of the last century. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6b802430625840e7a81878bfc63654aa", "input": "Review: Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, \"You can't paint that! But I want to!\" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she \"paints for herself!\" yet falls for the first person she sees.Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f6d34219e2c84d0596badf5666289ef3", "input": "Review: After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-11219d642178481a8d45343427432d5c", "input": "Review: Warning: Does contain spoilers.Open Your EyesIf you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds. I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable. He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.\"What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?\"What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.Open your Eyes.Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them. Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth. Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is \" the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter.\" He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called \"Best Pictures of the year\" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it. This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed. And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.Open Your Eyes Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-44641912c1b6464c8eb74a31d5b8b6c3", "input": "Review: This movie is pretty cheesy, but I do give it credit for at least trying to provide some characterization for it's principles. There are some great moments in the film and the dialogue has some great moments as well.The aerial assault sequence is perhaps the best part of the movie.I guess I really like the idea of what lengths a veteran will go for a fellow veteran. Sure it's not all that well done, but the premise is not at all bad.Tom Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ea187e0de4234665871ae926dea88c96", "input": "Review: Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be911a017bca446795477676141ec0c9", "input": "Review: I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-89f8c63e29724e8db31085b042cd4c6f", "input": "Review: One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8abf3da646aa4b189f06a6dc8f714287", "input": "Review: The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star \"decent\" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.This genre has been more successfully handled by \"Nobody's Fool\" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) \"About Schmidt.\" I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.I'll give it an \"A\" for effort. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-21a4d2e506e94714a44852f486b7b6de", "input": "Review: Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the \"great\" Robert Florey can't aid this one.*1/2 (of four) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-da9141f57bfa4e07a3aeea34c8db3611", "input": "Review: In \"Anne of Green Gables\" (1934), Marilla Cuthbert (Helen Westley) and Matthew Cuthbert (O.P. Heggie), middle-aged siblings who live together at Green Gables, a farm in Avonlea, on Prince Edward Island, decide to adopt a boy from distant orphanage to help on their farm. But the orphan sent to them is a precocious girl of 14 named Anne Shirley (Dawn Evelyn Paris-a veteran of Disney's series of \"Alice\" shorts who later would adopt her character's name). Anne was only 11 in Lucy Maude Montgomery's source novel but the same actress could not credibly go from 11 to college age during the course of the story. The movie suffers somewhat from this concession, as many of Anne's reactions and much of what she says are more entertaining coming from an eleven-year-old that from a teenager. As in the book, Anne is bright and quick, eager to please but dissatisfied with her name, her build, her freckles, and her long red hair. Being a child of imagination, however, Anne takes much joy in life, and adapts quickly to her new family and the environment of Prince Edward Island.In fact Anne is the original \"Teenage Drama Queen\" and the film's screenwriter elected to focus on this aspect of her character. Which transformed the basic genre from mildly amusing family drama to comedy. A change that delighted audiences and that continues to frustrate reader purists. Since the comedy is very much in the spirit of the Montgomery's story I can see no reason to take issue with the changes, but let this serve as fair warning to anyone expecting a totally faithful adaptation. The comedy element is the strength of the film as it is one of the earliest self-reflexive parodies of Hollywood conventions. The actress Anne Shirley was one of Hollywood's all- time beauties and the film is in black and white. So much of the amusement is in seeing the title character's endless laments about her appearance and hair color contradicted by what is appearing on the screen. Anne regularly regales her no nonsense rural companions with melodramatic lines like: \"If you refuse it will be a lifelong sorrow to me\". Perhaps the funniest moment is when she corrects the spelling of her name on the classroom blackboard. Tom Brown does a nice job as Anne's love interest Gilbert Blythe and Sara Haden steals all the scenes in which she appears as the Cuthbert's pompous neighbor. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-23cbe440c0004aca97223fa838442ad1", "input": "Review: A hot-headed cop accidentally kills a murder suspect and then covers up the crime, but must deal with a guilty conscience while he tries to solve a murder case. Andrews and Tierney are reunited with director Preminger in a film noir that is as effective as \"Laura,\" their earlier collaboration. Andrews is perfectly cast as the earnest cop, a good guy caught up in unfortunate circumstances. The acting is fine all around, including Malden as a tough police captain and Tully as Tierney's protective father. The screenplay by Hecht, a great and prolific screenwriter, is taut and suspenseful, and Preminger creates a great atmosphere. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd0228149d8e4988ad9155cbf9b2c35e", "input": "Review: Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say \"two thumbs up\". Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-707b17a3ff7b478cbacffcb5f3a03a25", "input": "Review: A slight, charming little movie to be sure, but a superbly-crafted one. Gwyneth Paltrow shines in this early showcase for her British accent, and the cast assembled around her all lap up the dialogue. This came out around the time of Sense and Sensibility, and I'm sure I don't know why that one garnered all the Oscar attention. Emma is Jane Austen's most accessible and least stuffy story, told well. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-bb092c8f99524589b520242f7068bdc0", "input": "Review: THE CRIMSON RIVERS is one of the most over-directed, over-the-top, over-everything mess I've ever seen come out of France. There's nothing worse than a French production trying to out-do films made in Hollywood and CR is a perfect example of such a wannabe horror/action/buddy flick. I almost stopped it halfway through because I knew it wouldn't amount to anything but French guys trying to show-off.The film starts off promisingly, like some sort of expansive horror film, but it quickly shifts genres, from horror to action to x-files type to buddy flick, that in the end, CR is all of it and also none of it. It's so full of clichés that at one point I thought the whole thing was a comedy. The painful dialogue and those silent pauses, with fades outs and fades ins just at the right expositionary moments, made me groan. I thought only films made in Hollywood used this hackneyed technique.The chase scene, with Vincent Cassel running after the killer, is so over-directed and over-done that it's almost a thing of beauty. The climax on top of the mountain, with the stupid revelation about the killer(s) with Cassel and Reno playing \"buddies\" like Nolte and Murphy in 48 HRS, completely derailed what little credibility the film had by then.It's difficult to believe that the director of THE CRIMSON RIVERS also directed GOTHIKA, which though had its share of problems, doesn't even come close to the awfulness of this overbaked, confused film. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bcd7f46602944fad819ae7420f8e0eb9", "input": "Review: Aside from the great movie METROPOLIS, this is about the oldest pure sci-fi movie. While at times the film is a bit preachy and the acting can be a bit broad, it is a great film for two reasons. First, it is extremely original in both style and content. Even in the 21st century, there are no films I can think of that are anything like it. Second, for its time, the special effects were absolutely incredible--using matte paintings, models and huge casts to create amazing scenes of both a post-apocalyptic world and a vast city of tomorrow. Sure, you could sit back and knock the film because, by today's standards, the effects are only so-so. But, you must appreciate that this was state of the art when the film came out in 1936 and it must have really amazed audiences. In many ways, the sets look highly reminiscent of the \"modern cities\" featured at the 1939 WORLD'S FAIR.I think the movie is also interesting because it seems torn by the question \"are people really THAT stupid or are we destined for greatness?\" The end result seems to be a little of both! How true!A final note: I saw this twice on TV and just a short time ago on video. All three times the sound and print quality stank--particularly the sound. If this is available on a DVD, hopefully it is a lot cleaner and will provide optional captioning. As the sound on the video kept cutting out, I really would have appreciated this! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c6dbc886b9254480bc6f502d9cf2964a", "input": "Review: Okay so I went into this movie not really expecting much I figured an action flick similar to The Fast and the Furious. Some nice cars some nice girls somewhat of a decent plot. Unfortunately I would have to say that this was probably the worst movie I have seen this year. Don't get me wrong the cars were nice and the girls were OK but the way they put the movie together was just plain crappy to put it nicely. The story just never made you care about the cast and the movie seemed just pieced together. So overall this movie was not the worst thing ever by far but if your looking for a movie to go to this weekend I would pass on this one for now. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5bcf7c87bc834646b7f6a94eff7cadd0", "input": "Review: Tommy JOnes and Matt Dillon do the gambling world proud. The various moves with the wrists had to be learned as throwing craps is a skill in and of itself.There are a few surprises. AS cynical as we are today, I fully expected the 'good girl' to be crying over his grave, instead of his Buddy's. Especially with her remarks about 'going to the funeral of her best friend', when she first meets Matt. And then of course you expect Matt to kill the guy who threw battery acid in Mr. Allen's face, blinding him (interesting role by Bruce Dern). WRRROOONNNNGGG!!! some of the other Hollywood endings DO happen, but the writing is so excellent, the acting so carefully wrought that you're blissfully unaware.And the music is OUT OF THIS WORLD. Taking us back to the 50s when our 'native passions' were first being unleashed by the music of Ray Charles and Bo Diddley. Even a little racism raring its ugly head in Chicago, but at a club called, wonderfully, 'Biloxi' with a Confederate flag backing up the racist remarks. I'll be watching it again, just to hear the music. Good thing I have the FACTOTUM sound track, so I can listen to that in the car. Watch both together, and you'll see how Matt has matured....playing bar room characters in both. NOw that he owns a bar in the Paramount HOtel in NYC, he probably has great opportunity to do his studies. Great actor, just coming into his own. He shows finely nuanced performances ...the good and the bad in his characters. His 'young boy off the farm' is a great study, made especially poignant because of his bassett-hound eyes. He makes love, convincingly as well. Since he was in several movies with Diane Lane as a teen-ager, I wonder how that it ...making love to an actress you kinda grew up with. Adds conviction, I'll say that. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-17a338a2369849ba83bd4c9678744f81", "input": "Review: 'Holes' was a GREAT movie. Disney made the right choice. Every person who I have talked to about it said they LOVED it. Everyone casted was fit for the part they had, and Shia Labeouf really has a future with acting. Sigourney Weaver was perfect for The Warden, she was exactly how I imagined her. everyone who hasn't seen it I recommend it and I guarantee you will 'Dig It'. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-34cd498b4f334df088bc5baf64bd540a", "input": "Review: This movie is pretty cheesy, but I do give it credit for at least trying to provide some characterization for it's principles. There are some great moments in the film and the dialogue has some great moments as well.The aerial assault sequence is perhaps the best part of the movie.I guess I really like the idea of what lengths a veteran will go for a fellow veteran. Sure it's not all that well done, but the premise is not at all bad.Tom Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d15e7a6412c8479080742b46d71067f3", "input": "Review: Considering the lack of art with in African cinema (or Black American Cinema). The Idea offers a multidimensional look at a community assigned to hoods and dealers. But the funny thing is this is not at all the focus or even the subject of the short. But it is the unstated assertion of independence from these themes that is most sticking. The genre is unique and not the typical expectation. It is almost this departure which first catches the eye, so watching it twice is critical. The film has an aesthetic quality which lends its self to the true art of cinema.And it is this true art that with an African voice that is extremely rare. The film doesn't copy to attain its message, it innovates and provokes by pulling at subtle stereotypes (not racial but character based stereotypes), From a writers perspective the film is brilliant. It carries multiply messages which include a very rapid character development. It must be remember this film is less than 10 minutes and it manages to establish character very quickly. The usage of colour texture and music is also to be commended. But considering the director, Owen Alik Shahadah's last venture 500 Years Later, music is to be expected. But from a theme point-of view it seems like the idea is a departure but the satire eludes indirectly to a social problem—brilliant stuff! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1fa571fb19a04c62ac8a8a8b49629c4b", "input": "Review: I had heard good things about this film and was, you guessed it, a bit disappointed. Reese Witherspoon is as promised surprisingly good, surprisingly confident, at a young age; really all the (small) cast are quite solid, in their simple 50s American setting. The reason I didn't rate this film higher is mainly that towards the end, the grief shown by the older sister didn't seem so real and this pulled me out of the film a bit. Perhaps we are expected to fill in the plot, or perhaps the film needed to be a bit longer. Maureen's character is quite underdeveloped I think. It is understandable that Dani (Reese W., the younger) would be traumatised and angry, but why is her sister shown to be more upset? Because she's a few years older? Hasn't the end rather undermined the rest of the film? The pacing of the movie makes it seem that Maureen and Court have only just met, when he gets tractored (warning: this scene is surprisingly brutal, in retrospect it seems like it might have been trying to shock a bit. well it works!). It depends what you want - if you want the girls' happy story of young love that it seems like you're going to get, you're in for a surprise. Man in the Moon is both quaint and dreamy and a harsh coming of age film – a rather awkward combination? I liked the character of Court though, I can see what girls watching this might be watching. And I loved that they had the courage to both let him hurt the younger sister (most men would, most films wouldn't) and get killed.7/10 on my pretty harsh ratings scale. For some reason I found Jason London on a tractor funny. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-2535e72517234be2b0fdb65c24c210be", "input": "Review: This is the magnum opus from the Swedish king of crap, Mats-Helge Olsson. Seldom has a movie of this magnitude been made in Sweden and it truly stands out as one of the most amazing achievements in Swedish film to date. Who pays for these things? The Russian nuclear scientist Markov wants to defect to Sweden. But his plans are ruined by the Russian military who kidnap him and tell him that he has arrived in Sweden. This trickery is their way of seeing to that Markov continues his work in nuclear physics that will revolutionize the energy supply for the whole planet. The CIA however is bent on getting Markov to the west and send their ninja to liberate him.The practice of having Swedish actors speaking English is something that Mats-Helge has perfected in his later works. The cheap b-movie feeling this creates is probably unmatched for performance. But besides this? Well the action is standard direct-to-video style. Machine guns firing huge clouds of smoke. Thousands of Russians dying. People running around in black ninja suits, trying to hide in the snow.What really stands out though is the insanely poor way the fighting scenes are choreographed. When they say \"Ninja\" in the title i expect martial arts, i expect close combat. But there are maybe two or three scenes of actual martial arts in this movie. And they are hilarious. It's so bad i lack the words to describe it. If the ninjas moved any slower their hearts would stop. And of course the whole movie ends in a bang that indicates a special-effects budget consisting of four food-stamps and a McDonald's voucher.So what's the verdict? Instant classic of course. Never before has a movie been made that is so obviously meant to be consumed along with huge amounts of alcohol. It's the ultimate party movie. Insert into video and laugh. One just has to realize that movies like these are not made any more. This is film history.Therefore the rating is 8/10 for entertainment, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for accents. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2cbed371437e45b691dcafa199066525", "input": "Review: Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-b383fa3037cd4dc5bc4493a55fbd9247", "input": "Review: SPOILERSTom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into \"others.\" Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c9a01b819808429baa35ce66f10f4f25", "input": "Review: I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7fd74ecb2c2942ea98bc207d5c5dbad2", "input": "Review: Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-83290b7e32db42f881e8b24f88ccc6fa", "input": "Review: Being the first feature film with Robert De Niro (although not released for years later), this is worth the watch. De Niro's role isn't huge, yet amusing as one of two friends who first try to prevent another friends marriage only to later chase him down to force him into it. Any die hard De Niro fan will get a kick out of an early performance by arguably the best actor today. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-3de3bb491f414699b8e9afa1e1ab41a1", "input": "Review: This anime was underrated and still is. Hardly the dorky kids movie as noted, i still come back to this 10 years after i first saw it. One of the better movies released.The animation while not perfect is good, camera tricks give it a 3D feel and the story is still as good today even after i grew up and saw ground-breakers like Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. It has nowhere near the depth obviously but try to see it from a lighthearted view. It's a story to entertain, not to question.Still one of my favourites I come back too when i feel like a giggle on over more lighthearted animes. Not to say its a childish movies, there are surprisingly sad moments in this and you need a sense of humour to see it all. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1411e5cdc0e944149c8af385973e617d", "input": "Review: About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it! Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself. It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8ea718b299f948ed986eb7d8414d809a", "input": "Review: This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much \"action\". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f908012207254877b79c90855946ce77", "input": "Review: Watching \"The Fox and the Child\" was an intoxicating experience. The lush visuals, integrity of point of view, and utter beauty of the setting and characters left me in a swoon of pleasure.The plot is uncomplicated. Deceptively simple. Within the container of that simplicity a world unfolds that draws you in and leaves you breathless.I laughed. I wept. I learned.This is a movie you can trust yourself to -- give yourself over to. Dare I say it is an act of love intended for any innocent heart. It reaches to the heart of the viewer--of any age--and reveals the world through new eyes, as if seen from the heart.Adi Da Samraj once said that true Art draws the viewer beyond point of view into ecstatic participation in Reality. I feel I have been privileged to watch--no, to participate in--this film, a work of true Art. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-4a451764a687459d91f90f7a80fc4ac1", "input": "Review: The film's design seems to be the alpha and omega of some of the major issues in this country (U.S.). We see relationships all over at the university setting for the film. Befittingly, the obvious of student v.s. teacher is present. But what the film adds to its value is its other relationships: male v.s. female, white v.s. black, and the individual v.s. society. But most important of all and in direct relation to all of the other relationships is the individual v.s. himself. I was amazed at how bilateral a point of view the director gave to showing the race relations on campus. Most films typically show the injustices of one side while showing the suffering of the other. This film showed the injustices and suffering of both sides. It did not attempt to show how either was right, although I would say the skin heads were shown a much crueler and vindictive (quite obvious towards the end). The film also discusses sex and rape. It is ironically this injustice that in some ways brings the two races together, for a time. Lawrence Fishburne does an over-the-top performance as the sagacious Profesor Phipps. He crumbles the idea of race favortism and instead shows the parallelism of the lazy and down-trodden with the industrious and positive. Other stars that make this film are Omar Epps, Ice Cube, and Jennifer Connelly. Michael Rapaport gives an excellent portrayal of a confused youth with misplaced anger who is looking for acceptance. Tyra Banks make her film debut and proves supermodels can act.Higher Learning gets its name in showing college as more than going to class and getting a piece of paper. In fact, I would say the film is almost a satire in showing students interactions with each other, rather than some dry book, as the real education at a university. It is a life-learning process, not a textual one. I think you'll find \"Higher Learning\" is apropos to the important issues at many universities and even life in general. 8/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e5f09794ce6c4c558f1fe0fd63d99d1d", "input": "Review: Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse)… more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos… especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-15a654b37d5743ec92f7980122a17ec8", "input": "Review: In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy \"comic relief\" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-83a56332df514231bfdeae68f8402df0", "input": "Review: I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7e3b36e43f2c4f6fa87937f3e005c2c9", "input": "Review: This is so exciting! After I saw \"La Roue\" this afternoon, a short, light-hearted little movie, I consider this one a real treat! This is absolutely delightful and one of the most charming pictures I saw this year. It is the more amazing since it is an early talkie and puts some great pictures of the 30's to shame due to its innovative use of sound in cinema. It's simply filled with music and an adorable mood that's really upbeat and, bottom line, it made me happy! Obviously it wouldn't be so difficult to retrieve the lottery ticket the male lead was looking for, but the pace is so exhilarating and the movie is so spectacularly entertaining that I didn't even think of it twice. The comedy is many times hilarious and I think it is even superior to the Marx Brothers, possibly the biggest comedic force of the time. This is rather perfect. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a7a9997692ed45819ea150dae81cd1ae", "input": "Review: This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to \"dance out\" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5c0f045e7bfa46abbec2745d02b7e287", "input": "Review: Kusturika made it again. Another masterpiece. A coral comedy full of his own landmarks, with a frenetic rhythm and many glorious moments, we laughed and laughed, what a party! The music is everywhere, and also the shooting, the animals, the crazy bastards, sex and amazing gadgets and inventions, everything colorfully visual to entertain only. Pure cinema in essence. A wonderful experience to watch. And one is specially grateful since good comedies are so rare, and so wonderful. Well, this is one, and if you enjoyed Kusturica's previous films, you'll love this, although, as in all comedies, it is about a chemical reaction, and you have to be in the mood for it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-2b629018eb4446e5bb5a68521045018d", "input": "Review: This movie was one of the funniest movie I've seen in years and the laughs from the audience members support me. Not since My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) has the laughter been as spontaneous and intense. Easily has intricate as last year's Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) in its use of parody (espionage in Mr. and Mrs. Smith and sex in My Super Ex-Girlfriend). Director's Ivan Reitman balance between comedy and drama, between crazy and downright ludicrous is great. Never does the shock and dramatic serious crack the rule of comedy. At the same time, this predictable romantic comedy never loses its touching emotional elements even if the ending is broadcast in advance. In some ways, it's so evident that it's great to see how it plays out. Just like in real life, sometimes the truth is so evident that one can't really see it. Easily eight out of ten stars ranking up there with Tootsie (1982). Possibly a nine (depends on how it appears on a second viewing). Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-71b615e6da154731b24aca8277ced4ed", "input": "Review: When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-35acc66066e344f39e6ee845d115de6b", "input": "Review: A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.This is a wonderful, unsung romance.Grade: A+ Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-08e33326cb87490caded47842a72b8b6", "input": "Review: This a superb self-contained work that is unconnected with anything before or after. Brat Pack crooning and club exclusivity are not my biscuits of choice, but in this law-free world they make an alluring ambiance. The film is packed with Our Guys, distinctive actors who add distinction to this work with winning performances. The dialogue is a joy. In fact it's a new vernacular. One of the few films that can be watched repeatedly with deepening appreciation.Highpoints include Billy Idol's British loutishness, Ben London's vulturine brassware, Kyle's squirmishness, and the survey of ad hoc philosophies. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-55d374ed657e4b578b442717d2c713a7", "input": "Review: 'The Rookie' was a wonderful movie about the second chances life holds for us and also puts an emotional thought over the audience, making them realize that your dreams can come true. If you loved 'Remember the Titans', 'The Rookie' is the movie for you!! It's the feel good movie of the year and it is the perfect movie for all ages. 'The Rookie' hits a major home run! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-c52fd3851df74e2a9e24790aa070cb55", "input": "Review: I'm so glad I happened to see this video at the store. I was looking for some happy movies and this one turned out to be a true gem. I loved that the movie, a love story of sorts, wasn't about some beautiful twenty-somethings; rather, it's a story of some beautiful sixty-somethings, who used used to be twenty-somethings. It's a good, well written, and wonderfully acted story with fabulous WWII band music thrown in as well. It's also got a delightful surprise in it for Scottish castle lovers. It left me smiling and ready to watch it again, which I did a couple more times before I turned it in. I highly recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-eee0f1e8ec034fc5ac0a375b9b259a00", "input": "Review: This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-01d66f2639e14aa5b9af12f6f0fc7f3b", "input": "Review: This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in \"zero\")I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e42042b531d04cf4b8812b645955ad13", "input": "Review: I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ad4a099d88f04df0814a4e6c9cfbd651", "input": "Review: In Joel Schumacher, you have one of the most inconsistent film makers of all time. But this is common knowledge; I think his main problem is the array of genres that he covers whilst at the same time, failing to develop any sort of certain style that might label him an auteur. Hitchcock liked his suspense and his horror/thriller; Chaplin liked his comedy; Scorsese likes his crime driven mafia stories amongst others and Spielberg likes his large scale, big budget adventure films that combine just enough violence for the adults and fun for the kids. Other more obscure examples include Kubrick and Welles who covered too much to write about here.But Schumacher is the sort of guy who makes a flawed film revolving around a great idea or a really quite enjoyable film revolving around a seemingly dull premise. Falling Down had a great idea behind it but I found it flawed and anticlimactic with too many scenes seemingly relying on comedy. Batman is a superhero; superhero films have been big hits recently so how he managed to make not one but two appalling superhero films is beyond me. Then comes 8MM; a film with a basic premise that is executed in an impressive manner before Tigerland which is Schumacher's best film from what I've so far seen, in my opinion. With the war genre, laughter isn't something you'd associate with it for most of the time. I can remember scoffing at the absurdity of the D-Day landings during Saving Private Ryan: at the time when I first saw the film, I had not much knowledge of the Second World War bar when it began and finished. My eyebrows were up, my mouth slightly open with a weak 'I can't believe it smile' on my face. Needless to say, it was because of that film I searched out learning a bit more on what that event was all about and the war as a whole. In Tigerland, you are invited to laugh at the absurdity of war through Bozz (Farrell), a tough and egotistical soldier training for the Vietnam War.But what's clever here is that there are no jaw dropping war scenes of fighting and death and destruction; just one man and his battle with the system for most of the time. The things he says and the audacity at which he deals with his predicament is reminiscent of a school child winding up a series of teachers at an extremely strict boarding school. Tigerland may borrow from Full Metal Jacket in the sense it is a training routine for the Vietnam War but egos and superegos play more of a part here, I think. The superegos that are the drill sergeants go up against Bozz whose ego is extremely large. There is also the third part of Freud's triangle that sneaks into Bozz: the ID. Compared to all the other soldiers who all have rather large egos, Bozz is the only one brave enough to show it in front of the sergeants thus suggesting he is allows what he shouldn't do to float to the surface and express itself: \"You are all dead in this situation!\" barks a sergeant. \"Any Questions?\" \"Yeah, if I'm dead how come I can ask a question?\" replies Bozz whose punishments such as push-ups and dirt eating seem to un-faze him in true ID style; that is he enjoys the punishments.Also regarding the superegos, Bozz at one point tries to command a group of soldiers in field training. This is something the existing captain of the squad cannot do thus suggesting he is lacking in both the superego required for the job and the confidence to tell Bozz he is in charge. What follows is an actual conversation between Bozz and an existing drill sergeant who gives him his Christian name. This is where Private Wilson's (Whigham) character steps in: His uncontrollable rage and anger at Bozz explodes at certain time all culminating in the film's only real scenes of a shootout which is in the form of a training exercise in a river. Wilson cannot control his impulses and dislike toward Bozz and acts out.What I also liked about Tigerland is that it's shot in such a way that is brave. While lacking in innovation, Tigerland seems to use lower grade film stock or lesser cameras to get across its gritty look. Make no mistake that this could have been a pretty looking film with lots of colour and attractiveness. But, we get a documentary approach in the final piece making everything look like it was shot on a typical everyday camera for TV; the emphasis on the hand held is also apparent but Schumacher is clever: he never allows the film to become too much like a mockumentry whilst at the same time suggesting the film's budget could've been half of what it was. It's worth saying here that Spielberg said he wanted Saving Private Ryan to look like actual reel footage or something along those lines and as if it was recorded from the war scenes.While being very funny and entertaining, Tigerland is still a great study of what makes people tick; not necessarily in war but in the closest possible substitute. Its study on one man and how much he hates the system that he cannot even take it seriously is fascinating as is the drive of each soldier. There are several memorable scenes and situations culminating in a happy, if not unhappy ending that'll open your mind and make you think about what it's perhaps really like in the military. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-aa78b63b3c954b3ab291d21c40f30e3f", "input": "Review: How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-80beb838e964490b92e8109977ef20fc", "input": "Review: Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-5ebe9983dda64973a2794e27e6bc4bc9", "input": "Review: A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch \"Scalps\" or \"Alien Dead\" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but \"Haunting Fear\" is too dull to be enjoyable. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-445c9d2965604c1e8e5978777610aba1", "input": "Review: It's hard to find an outright bad historical drama that's based on the life of any number of British monarchs. Just take a well respected British or Australian actor, make things look pretty, and you're guaranteed a formula for Oscar success.The Young Victoria is no exception, getting just about everything right, the cinematography striking and beautiful, with soft lights and lush colors and fabrics. Starring Emily Blunt in a role she can finally soar in, the film begins with Victoria's 18th birthday and moves through the intrigue and issues that surrounded her eventual rise to the throne and her famous marriage to Prince Albert (Rupert Friend). As the young Victoria herself laments, she's moved like a chess pawn by a variety of parties as she finds her footing and her voice as one of Britain's most influential rulers.While this moving around the chess board is fairly typical territory, it is the development of Victoria's relationship with Albert that makes the film slightly more interesting. I confess: I have a degree in history with a specialization in the Victorian era, so I'm a bit attached to these figures. Despite their many flaws as rulers, Victoria and Albert were some of the first leaders devoted to improving civilization for their people. They left their legacy in the arts, in public health and education, and in Victoria's conservative views and mourning culture after Albert's death. But these things are only briefly hinted at during the film.It is fairly well established that Victoria and Albert were not only madly in love, but held a level of respect for each other not usually seen between monarchs in arranged marriages. Even if it did occur behind the scenes, their's was certainly one of the best known. Blunt and and Friend have just the right type of chemistry to do the famous pair justice, the proper mix of restraint and desperation. It's a different love, not usually shown on screen, especially in this sort of film. It's encouraging to finally see a relationship in which man and woman are on a equal playing field.But we don't get to see that love enough. While the filmmakers try to fit the affair amongst the political trappings, it doesn't quite build up the sort of momentum needed to keep the tension high. Also, without delving into the more advanced important public work of the pair, things feel a bit in limbo, superficial instead of intimate, and sometimes confusing. It's not as big an issue during the film, but afterward, the effects wear off rather quickly and you find yourself trying to remember what you just watched, despite the perfect performances by the leads, most noticeably Blunt who even captures the famous monarch's expressions.For as much as it tries, Victoria succeeds on many levels but lacks that certain sparkle that would take it from solid to classic. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-79981d6737fc4eb3b4b916f3f6408f59", "input": "Review: If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-df10fe1703454384ae88cd83c955ccf0", "input": "Review: A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9f2cf87cea55430085e9e5524472dca3", "input": "Review: Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And \"Maniac Cop\" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, \"What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death.\"1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. \"A black rainbow of death\" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.This is what you're in for. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-0dc103a08ecf4492b3344df564905070", "input": "Review: Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder \"What would I do in this situation?\" Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-a3054357bc134adcad8eb3fc735a678f", "input": "Review: Caught the tail end of this movie channel surfing through the cable movie channels, and was so intrigued I sought out the next showing.I really didn't know what to expect after reading the program summary, but I came away from this movie feeling quite disturbed and distressed. It also gave me as adult who attended high school in the 80's, a little better insight into what our kids have to contend with these days.The fact that you don't see the shooting only adds to the chillness of the plot. To see both child and adult alike struggle to comprehend and come to terms with the senseless shootings was at times overwhelming. And will admit that I shed quite a few tears throughout.On the whole, not a movie that I would seek out to what, however I am sure glad I did see it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ce9512477bd04292be78e4dcd2ee981a", "input": "Review: \"The Grudge\" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef096c576d7c418289e2a7e4f50def62", "input": "Review: One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-34100880e5d64205b928fe109a07841c", "input": "Review: Sort of family parody blending \"An Officer And A Gentleman\", \"Heartbreak Ridge\", \"Full Metal Jacket\" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-51191152ea094e50bc104338281f5144", "input": "Review: I finally got myself set up on mail order DVD rental so I could find movies not available to me in the stores. I chose The Souler Opposite because I love Christopher Meloni, and also like small, often ignored films.This one is such a treat! Meloni has such charm in this part. It's easy to pigeon hole him is you only ever see him as his alter ego Elliot Stabler (LOSVU). In this film, Meloni is an out of step unattached mid-lifer who is hitting the skids in many ways, only to find a path to happiness in someone unexpected.The relationship drawn between Barry (Meloni) and Tim Busfield's character is realistic and not over done. I haven't seen Busfield since 30something, and he was fun to watch. But it was all Chris' film. I became such a fan girl all over again.It is a bit slow in the beginning, I will admit. I thought some of the \"flashbacks\" could have been edited down. But overall, this film will delight you - male or female - as it has an honest, refreshing view of relationships today. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-eb2ad920b6874241aa4122151af0bffb", "input": "Review: Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-9e18a5323e494d0ba897cedf5e3563b5", "input": "Review: I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-be957b27f3f04198bd602d9a435338a3", "input": "Review: Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to \"wish or hate away.\" As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. **** Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-973391b37bdd40bebfbd2e87d5cf839b", "input": "Review: This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9fe9f005e5c74728bb1ea42eca0b8448", "input": "Review: The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them... Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-ef107a0bdbd4438496827e8339bea0b4", "input": "Review: i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are \"fair targets\" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc87211245b34a57a81e0d98acb0fa40", "input": "Review: I noticed \"Fire\" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-37512ef98fb242edb91c346485b9346a", "input": "Review: A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with another IMDb poster (Hey, Kmadden) about this film. The poster insisted that if I gave 'Flushed Away' a chance, I would like it. Based partially on that argument, I agreed to watch the film.'Flushed Away' has good intentions (At least on Aardman's part), but lacks the strength to pull it all together. Its best asset is sewer rat/boat captain, Rita (Played by Kate Winselt), who, IMO, should have been the movie's main character instead of Roddy (Hugh Jackman). Rita's cool, tough, and interesting, while Roddy spends much of his screen time sniveling.One of the things that bothered me most about 'FA' is the repetition of jokes that aren't funny to begin with. When Roddy gets hit in the crouch, the film makes sure he gets hit five more times immediately. \"My name's Shocky,\" says one of Rita's brothers, who then electrocutes Roddy at least three times. My tolerance for cheap gags that involve pain is at an all time low.I won't waste time griping about Katzenberg's kleptomaniac tendencies toward Pixar (One similar film's a coincidence, five's a rip off.), but I will say I'm disappointed in Aardman. They can do (and have done) so much better. Try harder next time, guys. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-a2540fd3c40b4a388591c96c7ef0d4db", "input": "Review: This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like \"I don't know\"; \"I like his arms\"; \"I like the way he makes love\" to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d3b3cc3963a54019ad41036c4851fc5d", "input": "Review: I saw this movie back in 1984, we first started watching \"This Is Spinal Tap\" and after 5 minutes we were ready to fall asleep. So we went instead to see this movie. If you have any conspiracy theory's going around in your head, you will want to watch this one. The question you have to ask yourself when watching this movie are: Do you think the government would be capable of doing this? (In my opinion there is no doubt that they could) But I don't want to give out too much information as that would be a spoiler and I think that you should view the movie for yourself.But, just to let you know, we still talk about this movie 20 years later and trying to explain it to people is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-49afb1d0d6564e81b4d7bb93a71b1c91", "input": "Review: I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is \"worst movie ever\". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the \"worst\" ever? A video not \"movie\" like \"zombiez\" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like \"Garden State\", \"Wedding Crashers\" and \"I heart huckabees\" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked \"stupid\" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5154e970cbae4e16b072410df2853e27", "input": "Review: It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing \"Newfoundland\" as \"New Fownd Land,\" Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e4f0b170f0b846d9b8ef405cdaa2b431", "input": "Review: I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season! Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-5974881c25ee4e1ba2d1f02f5ccbb82d", "input": "Review: OK, here it is: \"Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama.\" What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a \"political\" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-792a119798be4f0194cfd4441a8fe2d2", "input": "Review: The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-27de3bfaf6bb4ffd9c72cb4f37747e49", "input": "Review: Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!? Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-8018078998ff4287830b66869abcc1f4", "input": "Review: What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, \"prison mating ritual\" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding \"Ben Gazzara,\" introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7da68ec03b51492e9a2c0e6fb5fc1d26", "input": "Review: Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say \"The Emperor has no clothes.\" When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved \"Morse\" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new \"Inspector Lewis\" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.And as for his \"sidekick\" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.I'm sorry to say that they should have left \"Morse\" rest in peace. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-ffc494b93312485b9b9de5a6fddebc7d", "input": "Review: Kabei: Our Mother (2008) is a poetic and sublime beauty from Japan. A real weeper! I had heard great reviews for the film and rented it from Netflix. Am I glad I did! In many ways this film reminded me of the old style of Japanese classic film-making from the 1940's and 1950's that I've come to love so much, such as seen in Yasujiro Ozu pictures -- the title credits even begin in the same way, with the Japanese letters (characters) in red against neutral color burlap material. I immediately thought: this director loves Ozu. The same style was used too: mostly indoor sets with only a few outdoor scenes. Even a couple of \"pillow shots\", as Roger Ebert calls them. The strength of the film is built on the love of the characters for one another.The story follows the lives of a Japanese family before, and during, and after, World War Two. The mother takes care of her growing girls the best she can after the father (a University professor) is arrested for anti-war sympathies. He's never freed and only has a few brief meetings with his wife in prison before he dies of starvation and disease. Meanwhile a former student of the professor comes by often to help take care of the mother and two girls. He begins to fall in love with the mother and is a substitute father for the two girls. But war starts and he's drafted and they have to say an abrupt farewell. Will they ever express their love for one another? Will he ever return from the war? There is so much heart and gentle spirit in the performance of the lead actress, Sayuri Yoshinaga. She's almost a Madonna type, she's so beautiful! Big soulful eyes and flawless skin. The actor who plays the student is phenomenal as well: his name is Tadanobu Asano. What a sensitive performance. There is no macho in him at all; he's gentle and kind. I'd certainly love to see both of these two in other movies. I think I'll check to see what's available for them. The two little child actresses are wonderful too.The film is just released on NTSC DVD for American audiences, with very easy to read English subtitles. I gave it a 10 out of 10 on the IMDb. I cried almost as much as with the Japanese film classic Twenty-Four Eyes (1954). Don't miss this film! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4105e01755684b88b3226753f0dc71c7", "input": "Review: I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d2e53fb8999a43ccb8d5c58fcceaccfc", "input": "Review: As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically! Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out. Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.My rating: 5/5 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-50407016132d40869facec9a31ac4f2a", "input": "Review: Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the \"mission\" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a \"story\" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the \"story\".Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. After some \"story\", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-bebc1264c3314bb89e5b97f4056d7739", "input": "Review: If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the \"good\" and \"bad\" guys is decidedly less than distinct.Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an \"enemy\" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6da05dfbd0b744e687ca2c2bec14b7e9", "input": "Review: This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't) Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-367cf58b87f44a369c2fb9ec8cafadc5", "input": "Review: this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-e7eb936c31f54a8abbb5a399786159fa", "input": "Review: Thomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to sit through. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-454ca379e7da4c94a722b388716a9698", "input": "Review: Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis. Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-7468e5d44dcc4292b61966591dc5e0ab", "input": "Review: First a quick 'shut up!' to those saying this movie stinks. You can't go to every movie expecting 'Citizen Kane'. This was actually a fun movie. Jason Lee is good in everything he does. The only flaw in this movie is, I don't think there was enough chemestry between Lee and Julia Stiles. They should have dwelled more on that. Other than that, the movie is good fun. Selma Blair needs to eat something. She's worrying me. But she still looks beautiful. So yes, I recommend this movie for a date or light saturday afternoon fun. Go see.RATING: **1/2 out of **** Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f9bc35518dbb4d80836b34025dd03bd1", "input": "Review: I was up late flipping cable channels one night and ran into this movie from about 10 minutes into the start - every time I even thought going to bed, something kept on telling me to keep on watching it even though it was way way way past my bedtime.This movie could have been another easy slam dunk anti-gun film, but instead they chose to examine the aftereffects of the shootings. And even better, the movie kept on with the real life - just when you think they are going to take the easy and obviously contrived way out, a twist comes along and changes the whole outlook of the movie. This film not only doesn't follow the formula, it shows how other events often lead up to and/or affect what happens afterwards.I only wish the filmmakers had explored the issues around anti-depressant drugs more - the kids from Columnbine who did the shootings were on them for years and it was frightening to watch the way Deanna popped them every time the nightmares started. Up until recently they were dispensing the stuff like candy and only now do they even begin to understand what long term effects the drugs have. It was very refreshing to see that the mental illness aspect of the story was given quite a bit of film, having a relative who suffers from a mental illness, I can say that the movie was dead nuts on in every aspect of mental illnesses. Bravo to the director and writer who obviously did their homework on those issues. And for those who think certain things couldn't happen in a hospital (I don't want to tell any particulars), you're dead wrong on that too - I've been there. The script was so real it was amazing.Go BUY this film and show it to your teenage kids before it's too late. Someday they'll thank you for it. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-de2755a1d2824126a32c3c32aeea8cf3", "input": "Review: Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-1297a9e10d6645a9972202f905e57db6", "input": "Review: I admit, I had to fast forward through this poorly transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- NOTHING was happening, and everyone has already described the \"plot.\" But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained. Really trippy opening.I wish this had been a better written or thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty daft and a movie that makes no sense isn't a \"clever\" movie, it's just a poorly executed film.I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help. Otherwise, this is an odd little film that is best if fast-forwarded through! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-fd7499c951334d05a65b913906dd5ff7", "input": "Review: In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece \"Dirty Harry\", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, \"Magnum Force\", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, \"The Enforcer\" was grittier again, and was promoted as \"the dirtiest Harry of them all\". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own \"Sudden Impact\", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... \"Sudden Impact\" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the \"Man With No Name\" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. \"Sudden Impact\" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western \"Hang 'Em High\" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's \"Full Metal Jacket\") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous \"Do You Feel Lucky?\" scene in \"Dirty Harry\" and the black militant leader in \"The Enforcer\" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall \"Sudden Impact\" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all \"Dirty Harry\" films, (though \"The Dead Pool\" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10 Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-9ad0ecef14174c518d3ddd031da8070f", "input": "Review: This movie has some of the most awesome cars I've ever seen in a movie, and definitely the hottest women, but I would have to say it is still one of the worst movies I've ever seen.Here is the plot, and if you read it with a little inflection, you have the acting as well.Beginning, bring in characters, hot woman singing (obvious lip sync). Music agent or producer comes in, thinks that she is awesome asks her to race. She turns down, too many bad memories. Flash to war hero, back from war, has several fights, and becomes movie hero with attitude that he is better than everyone. Drive off in fast exotic car. Brother races, then dies. Hero to avenge death, cut away to getting weapons from friend. (You have never seen this friend before or after, but seems to really care about him) Are you sure you want to do this; Yes; I mean are you really sure; Yes, give me weapons; are you REALLY sure; Yes; OK, I guess I can't talk you out of it, be careful man, I love you.Now he goes to blow up his uncles house who owned the car his brother drove. Finds woman, decides to rescue her, She drives off, and he doesn't finish killing his uncle. Now there will be a race to finish the movie. Oh yeah, need to throw in one more scene with bad people coming in to beat up people that don't really matter, but maybe it adds a little plot. Race is not even that exciting, of course it ends with two cars racing, and one that should win throws in a surprise ending.OK, I just saved you $7.00. You can send all of your money to me, because I should have given you the same amount of enjoyment as this movie does. Don't get me wrong, the cars are awesome, and Nadija is beautiful, but it is truly an awful movie. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-53904e7d016c4982a3ffa4598eeed866", "input": "Review: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers — not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure — you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood \"9th Gate.\"If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all — at all except a redhead wig.I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; \"Rear Window.\" The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine. Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-6d0258628b644235bf1847d422dcca77", "input": "Review: This is the kind of film you want to see with a glass of wine, the fire on, and with your feet up. It doesn't require that much brain-power to follow, so is very good after a long day. I would say it is very unrealistic - if you expecting anything serious, then don't bother, but it is very funny. Just the thought that a businessman would go so far as to agree to live in a slum for a while, and then actually get to enjoy it... I would definitely recommend it. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-e152fdc80a51424ca0d660a0a0a15d5b", "input": "Review: Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.My favorite segments:14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the \"tenancier de bar\" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.84/100 (***) Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-cc985af477784ba4b6ddd82dd59d0ea2", "input": "Review: It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience? Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-f5d9e193b4154ca5a4fcade7105c0c55", "input": "Review: As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,\"Mayerling\"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call \"A Riot of Color\" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of \"The Student Prince\" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner.\"Forbidden Love\" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be \"padding\". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like \"Auntie Mame\",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question \"What's the bleeding time?\". I am not qualified to dispute \"Mayerling\" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-4003a50f46bd4a77b666c3672aad2cd7", "input": "Review: After a promising first 25 minutes that makes you feel all warm inside, you're pretty convinced that this will be a great romantic comedy. Then the movie takes a turn for the worse. The warm feeling might still be there, but as others has said: The plot becomes so unbelievable and artificial that it's almost unbearable to watch. The movie gets sped up, and you get the impression that you're either fast forwarding through it, or that the producers decided to fit it in less than 1h40m and had to cut a lot of scenes out.Realism isn't a goal onto itself, but as a viewer, I'm pretty convinced that this comedy isn't intentionally unrealistic, it just happens to be.On the plus side, this movie has a couple of nice interiors, and despite the bad script, I think that the actors performances are mainly good. If I could rate the first 25 minutes only, I'd probably give it an eight. As it is now, it gets a four. ...And that's being nice! If you're a sucker for romantic comedies you'll probably have a great time anyways. If not, I'd recommend that you watch something else. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-788e19a0cf2a460595dfb337044ebb2e", "input": "Review: This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to \"Mr & Mrs Iyer\".In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-f3189641b83a4928894c62fec1ef3aca", "input": "Review: While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1e4413c80cd941a6a5defb83595a5e03", "input": "Review: Aileen Gonsalves, my girlfriend, is in this film playing a secretary at the main character's bank. She has a lovely scene with Roshan Seth in a restaurant. There's more information on her website at >Having stated my personal interest in the film, I have to say that I think it is a beautiful movie - moving, funny and beautifully filmed. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-6fe996da74e041bfa5e88b2af67a7db0", "input": "Review: When I saw this \"documentary\", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this \"documentary\", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch \"Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation\", Made by Discovery channel and BBC. Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-31b7f6027e06494d9dcfb6ddf85f17e4", "input": "Review: Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-7dd954f3520e4c37a2cbb3ce679270bc", "input": "Review: When I saw the Exterminators of year 3000 at first time, I had no expectations for that movie. Although, it wasn't so bad as I was thought. It's kind of Italian version of Roadwarrior, with cast, that is almost famous in Italy, including Venantino Venantini. Behind the story is Elisa Briganti and Dardano Sacchetti, who are also responsible for story of Zombie flesh-eaters. You can also see other links to Italian horror movies: Luca Venantini plays the role of Tommy, and you can see that kid in Paura nella citta dei morti viventi (City of the living dead AKA Gates of hell) as John Robbins and in Cannibal apocalypse as the role of Mary's brother. Quite entertaining movie, with some dull parts. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "no" ] }, { "id": "task285-d7677916cd214b0080be5e2342506c1d", "input": "Review: Personnaly I really loved this movie, and it particularly moved me. The two main actors are giving us such great performances, that at the end, it is really heart breaking to know what finally happened to their characters.The alchemy between Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson is marvelous, and the song are just great the way they are. That's why I didn't feel surprised when I learned it had won 5 golden globe awards (the most rewarded movie at the Golden Globes), an Oscar and even a Grammy. This movie is a classic that deserves to be seen by anyone. A great movie, that has often been criticized (maybe because Streisand dared to get involved in it, surely as a \"co-director\"). Her artistry is the biggest, and that will surely please you! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-1eb29a6873dc46bd8dc6ea799f18b424", "input": "Review: Following the brilliant \"Goyôkiba\" (aka. \"Hanzo The Razor - Sword Of Justice\", 1972) and its excellent (and even sleazier) sequel \"Goyôkiba: Kamisori Hanzô jigoku zeme\" (aka. \"Razor 2: The Snare\", 1973), this \"Goyôkiba: Oni no Hanzô yawahada koban\" aka. \"Razor 3: Who's Got The Gold\" is the third, and sadly final installment to the awesome saga about the incorruptible Samurai-constable Hanzo 'The Razor' Ittami (brilliantly played by the great Shintarô Katsu), who fights corruption with his fighting expertise as well as his enormous sexual powers. As a big fan of 70s exploitation cinema made in Nippon, \"Sword Of Justice\" became an instant favorite of mine, and I was therefore more than eager to find the sequels, and full of anticipation when I finally stumbled over them recently. While this third \"Hanzo\" film is just not quite as brilliant as its predecessors it is definitely another great piece of cult-cinema that no lover of Japanese exploitation cinema can afford to miss. \"Who's Got The Gold\" is a bit tamer than the two foregoing Hanzo films, but it is just as brilliantly comical and crudely humorous, and immediately starts out fabulously odd: The film begins, when Hanzo's two assistants see a female ghost when fishing. Having always wanted to sleep with a ghost, Hanzo insists that his assistants lead him to the site of the occurrence... If that is not a promising beginning for an awesome film experience, I don't know what is. Shintaro Katsu, one of my personal favorite actors, is once again brilliant in the role of Hanzo, a role that seems to have been written specifically for him. Katsu IS Hanzo, the obstinate and fearless constable, who hates corruption and deliberately insults his superiors, and whose unique interrogation techniques include raping female suspects. The interrogated women than immediately fall for him, due to his sexual powers and enormous penis, which he trains in a rather grotesque routine ritual. I will not give away more about the plot in \"Who's Got The Gold\", but I can assure that it is as cool as it sounds. The supporting performances are also very good, and, as in the predecessors, there are plenty of hilariously eccentric characters. This is sadly the last film in the awesomely sleazy 'Hanzo' series. If they had made 20 sequels more, I would have happily watched them all! The entire Hanzo series is brilliant, and while this third part is a bit inferior compared to its predecessors, it is definitely a must-see for all lovers of cult-cinema! Oh how I wish they had made more sequels! Question: is it a positive review?", "output": [ "yes" ] }, { "id": "task285-d89867313bbb43c98ea2b473a88d2731", "input": "Review: I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. Question: is it a negative review?", "output": [ "yes" ] } ], "Instance License": [ "Unknown" ] }